According to evolutionary theory the random process known as natural selection coupled with long ages can account for the numerous complex systems common to all life. However in every step or increase in any organisms complexity, there exists an equal amount of genetic information that is required but unaccounted for by known natural processes. Why must this increase of complexity be accounted for in any increase of complexity? It only seems logical after all every known biological function or structure does have corresponding genetic information that is used to direct or synthesize it.
What we consistently observe is that present day biological systems are assembled using genetic information. Information then is not only an essential part of all living organisms it is required before a new function or structure can be added or assembled and then passed on. And so in order for evolution to be scientifically valid it must account for the increases of information something in which mutations so far have been shown not to do.
From observation we find that the more complex an animal is the more cell types it requires to perform vital functions. For example in a single celled eukaryote, even though internally it is specialized with a nucleus and various organelles, it is a single cell organism. In a trilobite however, there are dozens of specific tissues and organs which require functionally dedicated and specialized cell types. When we get down to the molecular level of an organism we find that cell types require many new and specialized proteins. An example of this is an epithelial cell which lines the intestine and secretes digestive enzymes. At a minimum it requires structural proteins to modify its shape, regulatory enzymes to control the secretion of the digestive enzyme, and the digestive enzymes themselves. Now these would be brand new proteins which require new genetic information encoded in DNA. An increase in the number of cell types implies that in principal there should be represented a considerable increase in the amount of specified genetic information needed to maintain and pass this advantage on to future generations.
It is estimated that at a minimum a self sustaining complex unicellular organism would need anywhere between 300 and 500 genes (about 318 - 562 kilobase pairs of DNA) to produce the necessary proteins to keep itself alive.* Take for example the 1 millimeter long worm Caenorhabditis elegans, has a genome of approximately 97 million base pairs. However in the the insect drosophila melanogaster, better known as the fruit fly, its genome size is approximately 120 million base pairs.** What we see from simple life forms to complex animals is that it represents a significant and therefore in principle a measurable increase in specified complexity or purposeful information.
*Mitsuhiro Itaya, An Estimation of the Minimal Genome Size Required for Life, FEBS Letters 362 (1995): 25760;
**John Gerhart and Marc Kirschner, Cells, Embryos, and Evolution (London: Blackwell Science, 1997), 121.
***The C. elegans Sequencing Consortium, Genome Sequence of the Nematode C. elegans: A Platform for Investigating Biology, Science 282 (1998): 201218.
The question then is: Does an increase in genetic information always mean an increase in complexity? The answer is no. But if that is the case then is it reasonable to say that all increases in complexity requires that there also be an increase of information? That is a definite yes, as the acquisition of this increase in genetic information must be retained in someway or it wont be passed on to the next generation will it? But how is this done when the metabolic energy of the living cell is exclusively used to repair and duplicate, and maintain itself?
Why is this all important fact that a growth in biological complexity requires an equal increase in genetic information (not just random arrangements but purposeful information) often ignored by evolutionists I wonder?
