To the editor:

This is in response to the online comments questioning my 6-29-2023 ‘It’s not Creationism’.

Having subscribed to the prestigious AAAS ‘Science’ weekly publication for about 10 years, I have yet to find anything detailing how molecules change into extremely complex molecular machines without any intellectual input. Macro-evolution stands or falls at the biochemical level, and it is there that evolution fails miserably.

One commenter challenges my statement: “Dual coding genes are statistically unlikely, in other words, next to impossible to be produced by random chance.” He says: ” this computation would be close to impossible to reproduce considering the variables.” Maybe, maybe not. So let’s approach the evolution by ‘random mutation and natural selection’ idea from the perspective of each cell having 10 million factories (ribosomes). These ‘molecular machines’ have about 1 million parts (atoms), all of which have to be in the right place in order for it to function. This machine is self-assembling. Every molecule in a cell is made by this machine or by an enzyme that is also made by this amazing machine. It receives instructions on what to build from its DNA, via messenger RNA molecules and then builds parts using building blocks (amino acids) that are delivered by little trucks (transfer RNAs) at a rate of 20 per second. The ribosome can build about 30,000 different types of machines; some with only 29 blocks, others up to 34,000 blocks. There’s a lot more stuff going on in the cell to make all this happen, I’ve barely scratched the surface.

Consider the brain with its 100 billion cells (neurons) each having thousands of wires (axon/dendrites) which connect to synapses and each synapse being a micro-processor with 2000 different machines (proteins) for energy production and communications, etc. Now we get a glimpse of why the “grammar” of the human genetic code is far more complex than the highest level computer languages which only go in one direction, one character/word at a time. The genome has information that be read in forward or reverse, 3 dimensional code that overlaps other code, and more, according to the Karolinska Institute (11-9-2015).

In summation: How can kids employ “Critical Thinking” when science education standards are teaching kids ‘fantasy-world science’? Those standards are due for a major over-haul. Incorporating ‘Intelligent Design’ will better reflect reality for the kids.

Phil Drietz

Delhi