While these small steps are taking place, the species would be less fit. These small steps must take numerous generations to achieve success. Therefore, by its own terms, natural selection can not account for new genes and new genes are essential for the development of new species. From here on, I will call the development of new traits in existing genes micro-evolution and the creation of new genes macro-evolution. Micro-evolution is the source for the adaptability of species. Through small mutations in one of the pair of genes each individual possesses, new traits can be developed without destroying the functioning of the individual. Such traits as coloring, shape, and height can be very useful in some circumstances and can be there ready to be used when necessary. However, each gene does a distinct job, and it can not just be thrown out and used as a laboratory for a new species. In fact we know that the creation of new genes is indeed necessary for more advanced species. A fruit fly for example has only about half as many genes as a human being, some 15,000 fewer genes. So how could so many new genes have arisen in order to create new species? The evolutionists would wish us to believe it comes about through the accidental duplication of existing genes and that this extra gene becomes the ‘ laboratory’ for macro-evolution. There is scientific proof that genes are accidentally duplicated. However, there are a few problems with this theory. We must remember from basic genetics that genes come in pairs, and that half of those genes are passed to the next generation. Since this gene is not a part of the species, the mate will not have this extra gene and the chances of this extra gene being passed to the next generation are just 1 in 4. Unless this gene is extremely lucky (let’s remember, it is just a copy of an existing gene with no purpose at all yet) it will likely disappear if not in the first generation within 2 or 3 more generations.

There are even more problems to be encountered though even if this gene somehow manages to spread itself throughout the species and survives to be able to mutate into something else. As we may remember, this gene is a copy of an existing gene. Now genes are not all the same, they can perform different tasks because they have different characteristics. They are composed of different amino acids and also have different lengths. Length is a problem for creating new genes out of old genes. Genes vary in length from less than 100 amino acid residues to over 1000. At the end of each gene there is a stop marker that says, this is the end of the gene, there is no more to be had. Therefore this gene could only create a new one of the exact same length. Since macro-evolution requires completely new capabilities to be created, this is a serious limitation on the capacity of duplicated genes to create something completely new. This however is not the end of the problems for macro-evolution.

What does it take to create a successful gene? Let’s take one example - DNA Polymerase III. This is the main gene involved in DNA replication in one celled organisms. This gene is made up of seven sections each 300 to over 1000 amino acids long. Now what are the odds of through random mutation such a gene arising? Let’s see we would need a chain some 2000 amino acids long with the proper amino acid (one of 20) in each link. Now the chances of this occurring, even if we were to agree that there can be some amino acid substitution at each position, let’s say one of any 5 could fit in each one and still be effective (this is very optimistic and gives lower odds than in reality) the odds would still be 4 to the 2000th power. That yields a number larger than a 1 with some 1500 zeros behind it. An evolutionist would say given enough generations and enough individuals, such a thing could happen. The answer is an absolute no. In a species that replicated on a daily basis for the last 3.5 billion years since life is supposed to have begun on earth there would have been 1,277,500,000,000 generations. That takes care of 12 zeros, we still need to get rid of 1488. Let’s say there was a large population of these creatures, let’s say there were a trillion trillion of these species (is that generous enough?) . Now a trillion is 12 zeros times another trillion is 24 zeros. So now we have only 1464 zeros to go!

To some this may not sound impossible, but science defines as impossible an event which would take a 1 with some 100 zeros behind it. So scientifically, this new gene is totally impossible. Evolutionists like to say that evolution would cut the odds, because it could “fix” an amino acid that through random mutation landed in the right spot. This is the theory of one of the most popular hacks of evolution, Richard Dawkins. Problem with saying that is that evolution can not “fix” a gene until it has successfully achieved an improvement. Since the gene has not been completed yet, since it has not achieved its purpose (in this case the replication of the cell) the gene is at all the intermediate points just plain junk DNA. Even worse, perhaps it is totally inimical of the individual and it may kill it. So Dawkins’s solution to the problem is total nonsense. In fact the odds are much worse than stated above. DNA Polymerase III is just one of three genes required for cell replication, without the other two it is useless. So the odds are actually much greater than stated. Many of our systems require more than one gene working together to achieve a necessary function. This increases the odds of a new function arising to totally impossible odds.

Now, let’s go back to the beginning. Back to the beginning of life, where even evolution did not exist. Where there were no plants or animals to feed on. Where there were no genes to copy because there were not any to begin with. Where there was not a single living thing around to lend a hand. Where there was only rocks and minerals. How to get food for this new life? Well, the only known way for obtaining food by living organisms on earth aside from plants and animals is from the sun through photosynthesis - a very complicated process requiring numerous genes working together. Then we need meiosis to replicate the cell, of which our friend Polymerase III is only one of the requirements. The simplest cell also requires a membrane to hold itself together and allow for the taking of nourishment and excretion of wastes. It also needs a digestive system and a system for turning food into energy. Of course all this had to happen all at once through completely random chance.

As Darwin said in the 'Origin of the Species', Chapter VI:

“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

It should be clear by now that there is no natural way a cell could have arisen in the first place. It seems that the systems in living species could not have arisen through evolution when even one gene is a totally impossible improbability. So the only rational conclusion to be derived of the origin of life and the many wonderful species in it is: IT’S A MIRACLE.