...Spelling out the death of macroevolution.
The human genome is made up of DNA code. The DNA code consists of 4 "letters" (chemical bases) arranged in a specific, meaningful sequence/order for every organism. In other words, our COMPLEX genomic sequence is a specific arrangement of *meaningful information*. It's comprised of more than 3 billion DNA letters (A, T, C,
Essentially, our genome is an instruction manual on how to build human life, written in the "language" of DNA. Every living organism has a specific genome; a specific instruction manual. "Pick up the ball and place it in the box." Imagine that the sentence above represents the genomic sequence of a very simple organism; each English letter represents a letter of DNA code, and the overall sentence represents the meaningful *arrangement* of these DNA letters. A specific arrangement is vital, so that the sentence can be *translated* and has meaning (the same as a genomic sequence).
Further, imagine that the above sentence is made up of scrabble letters. A "random mutation" would be the equivalent of a small child that can't read, coming along and changing the letters around. Even if the child switches just one letter around, the sentence loses meaning. For example: "Pick up the ball and place it in the bxo." Oops. What's a bxo? The sentence has lost meaning, but we can still determine the *intended* meaning.
Thus, it still "works" for now. However...As the child (random mutation) continues to play with the scrabble letters, and makes more changes, here's what happens:
"Pick u the pball and place it in the bxo."
"Pick u the pball ad place n it in the bxo."
"Pic u the pball ad place n it in the bxok."
As the child further continues to play with the scrabble letters of life, the sentence continues to break down. This is a near EXACT representation of random mutations occuring in the genomic sequence of ANY organism. Now, if we were to COPY portions of the original sentence, we still wouldn't get any additional *meaningful* information that would enable us to create a NEW and DIFFERENT meaningful sentence. And yet, that's exactly what would be required if we wanted to get from a simple organism, to vastly more complex life forms (such as human beings) via macroevolution.
...In other words, you can't make a meaningful *book* starting with one sentence;
THERE IS NO ADDITIONAL MEANINGFUL INFORMATION FOR NATURE TO
SELECT FROM, DESPITE MUTATIONS AND COPIES.
Let's look at what copying the original, meaningful sentence from the above analogy would result in:
"Pick up the ball and place it in the box."
Now with copied information:
"Pick up the ball and place it in the place it in the box."
"Pick up the ball ball and place place it in the box."
"Pick up the ball and place it in in the box place it in the box."
As you can see, we STILL lose meaning. Additionally, as the child causes mutations to the copied information, it further continues to break down, losing more and more meaning. In order to get from a simple genome, to a vastly more complex genome, we'd need: additional, new and different, meaningful information. An entire population of mutated organisms still does not provide the kind of information that would be required.
In other words, we can't get from:
Genome A: "Pick up the ball and place it in the box."
To a more complex genome with countless, meaningful sentences above and beyond that of the Genome A (with entirely new and different, meaningful information):
Genome B: "Write a letter with specific wording. Put the letter in an envelope. Drive to Seattle. Meet a girl there. Read her the letter."
Obviously, you can't GET to the meaningful information in Genome B, starting with the meaningful information in Genome A... No matter how you swing it. And once again, this holds true despite natural selection. The ONLY way in which natural selection helps us here, is to pick the "best of the worst" from the mutated versions of our original meaningful sentence (genomic sequence). This is simple to demonstrate by applying our examples from above:
Mutations of the original "Genome A":
1. "Pick up the ball and place it in the bxo."
2. "Pick u the pball and place it in the bxo."
3. "Pick u the pball ad place n it in the bxo."
4. "Pic u the pball ad place n it in the bxok."
"Genome A" with copied information:
5. "Pick up the ball and place it in the place it in the box."
6. "Pick up the ball ball and place place it in the box."
7. "Pick up the ball and place in in the box place it in the box."
To produce any change, natural selection can only choose from options 1 - 7 above. If YOU were "natural selection", which option would you pick? The options only get *worse* as the child (random mutation) continues to mess with the scrabble letters of life. Even so-called "neutral" mutations are harmful, in the sense that they still result in loss of meaning. Refer back to our very first mutation above:
"Pick up the ball and place it in the bxo."
...The sentence is still usable. It still has meaning. We can still translate it and follow the instructions provided. But there is no question that the original word "box" has lost meaning. And the process only continues.
What the Scrabble Conundrum proves is that a process of *random mutation + natural selection* could NOT have provided the sort of additional, new and different MEANINGFUL information required to create increasingly complex organisms -and therefore macroevolution. What it also demonstrates is that life is likely experiencing genetic entropy - a gradual LOSS of meaning in our genomes.