DNA
DNA, or deoxyribonucleic acid, is molecule contains coded chemical formulas for the production of proteins and enzymes that determine our internal and external physical characteristics.
It is constructed like a ladder. Each rung on the ladder contains 2 of 4 specific molecules, but each chemical can bind to just one of the 4. Thus, each rung can be 1 of 4 different arrangements of those 4 chemicals. Here are the 4 different arrangements for one rung.
The rungs are then arranged to mean something when translated. When the arrangement of all the rungs is translated it writes out the formula for approximately 20,000 discrete proteins and enzymes, all of which are necessary for humans to survive.
Download the ONE PAGE PROOF that evolution could not have constructed the DNA molecule.
People who believe in evolution believe that a series of theoretical random mutations over millions of years (evolution) constructed a new "language" to record chemical forumlas by the progressive arrangement of 4 different chemicals. These random mutations then devised 20,000 immensely complex formulas and inscribed them upon a molecule.
If you are an evolutionist, you actually believe that.
But what are the realistic chances that this happening?
The chances of a the correct arrangement of the 4 chemicals in just one rung are 1 in 4. The chances of the correct arrangement of the same 4 chemicals in two rungs is 1 in 16.
The chances of random mutations correctly arranging just 10 rungs is 1 chance in 29,030,400. There are approximately 3,000,000,000 rungs on the DNA ladder.
DNA is in a programming language like C++ or Java. Darwinists argue that DNA was written by accidental generational changes progressively over millions of years and millions of generations. This is simply impossible because all the changes would have to be written in the same language. The language had to predate the changes because each change had to be written in the same language. This cannot be accidental. Also, the language itself is conceptual (logic), not physical; and mutations cannot create logic.
Each one of the rungs on the DNA ladder is like a letter on the page of a book - it means something in combination with the other rungs. Taken together the rungs are a language and they describe various things, one of which is the chemical formulas for approximately 90,000 - 100,000 proteins and enzymes that are expressed by approximately 30,000 genes:
"The human genome contains approximately 3 billion of these base pairs, which reside in the 23 pairs of chromosomes within the nucleus of all our cells. Each chromosome contains hundreds to thousands of genes, which carry the instructions for making proteins. Each of the estimated 30,000 genes in the human genome makes an average of three proteins."
The Human Genome Project Completion: Frequently Asked Questions (National Human Genome Research Institute, 2010): HTTPS://WWW.GENOME.GOV/11006943; See also Inside Life Science (National Institute of General Medical Sciences): HTTP://PUBLICATIONS.NIGMS.NIH.GOV/
INSIDELIFESCIENCE/ GENETICS-NUMBERS.HTML
Another function is called epigenetic, which is the coding of chemicals that regulate the activity of all of the genes. See https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/howgeneswork/epigenome
The number of letters in one strand of DNA is roughly the same as the number of letters in 20 Encyclopedia Britannicas. See Encyclopedia.
Imagine that 3 billion Aces, 3 billion Kings, 3 billion Queens and 3 billion Jacks are all arranged in thousands of different groups. If these cards were arranged in groups of four in one long line that is four cards thick and 3 billion cards long, the line of cards would circle the world approximately 6 times.
DNA is so similar to words composed of letters, Dr. George Church, a biologist, has succeeded in writing his textbook into a DNA molecule and reading it out again (see Wall Street Journal, August 16, 2012). The space necessary to write his textbook into DNA was .00703 of the writing-space for one strand of DNA. It is indeed interesting how that same scientist, having written his own book and encoded it into such a small portion of DNA can conclude that the textbook was composed by an intellect, but the evolutionist would argue that the original DNA, which is far more complex and vastly larger, was composed by accidents and dying animals. This is not a reasonable comclusion.
Dr. Church wrote his textbook into a DNA molecule in English. In order to write it, Dr. Church had to be able to speak English: English had to be a language that already existed before he began to write.
Although the DNA molecule is wound up inside of the nucleus of a cell and too small to see without a microscope, the DNA molecule is approximately 3 meters long (10 feet). See Mitchel, Campbell Reece. Biology Concept and Connections. California, 1997. See also http://hypertextbook.com/facts/1998/StevenChen.shtml
The nucleus of our cells also contains a method for copying specific portions of the DNA and then taking the copy to another place for reading. So, the DNA has to have codes embedded in it to show where the formula for one protein begins and ends and the chemical machinery that copies that portion has to know what those codes mean.
Assuming that the language that describes a particular protein already exists, what are the chances that 12 rungs of the DNA ladder could correctly describe a particular protein that consists of 12 different parts -- assuming that each of the 12 rungs carried the correct word? The chances that an accidental mutation could arrange the rungs of the DNA ladder to describe the correct sequence for a protein with 12 different parts is 1x2x3x4x5x6x7x8x9x10x11x12 or 1 chance in 479,001,600.
And there are 90,000 different proteins. The proteins that the rungs of the ladder of DNA describe are much larger and more complex than just 12 different components, and more than one rung is necessary to describe each component and some proteins contain hundreds of components. So the chances of the accidental writing of one of those proteins is 1 in a larger number than your calculator can calculate. Just try multiplying 1x2x3x4...x30. See Chances.
If a protein had 20 amino acids, what are the chances that they would all be correctly arranged? The chances are 1 in 1x2x3x4x5x6...x20, or 1 chance in 2,432,902,008,176,640,000. See Chances.
Let's see just how fast the evolution of such a protein would have to be if the right formula were derived half-way through the process. Half of 2,432,902,008,176,640,000 is 1,216,451,004,088,320,000. Most evolutionists believe that life first appeared between 2 billion and 4 billion years ago, so let's assume 4 billion to give evolution the most time that it allows itself. There are 35,040,000,000,000 hours in 4 billion years (365x24=8760 (hours in a year) 8760x4,000,000,000=35,040,000,000,000 hours in 4 billion years). For random mutations to hit upon the correct formula for a protein with 20 different components arranged in the correct order half way through the requisite iterations, it would require one new iteration each .00003 of an hour (35 / 1,216,451 = .0003 - we removed 12 places on each side of the equation). Suppose the correct formula was hit 1/10 of the way through. It would require a new iteration each .00288 of an hour (35 / 12,164) or 104 uninterrupted iterations per minute.
Let us now suppose that the formula was hit on the first try (one chance in trillions). That leaves only 20,999 other forumula to go - and millions of switches to govern their effect.
Certainly there are other variables. For instance, the arrangement of the particular components may not be as critical in some proteins as in others or some proteins may have less than 20 components. On the other hand, this model does not take into account the fact that some of the components themselves must evolve, all the components must be present, the correct rungs on the DNA ladder are written in a language (where did the language come from?), the rungs must be copied accurately, translated and used to actually create the proteins, and all of this must have evolved together.
The only logical conclusion is that a series of accidents did not create a language, write it into a molecule and then use it to inscribe the chemical formula for 90,000 proteins into a molecule.
But to evolutionists, the fact that it is logically impossible for DNA to have occurred through a series of extremely fortunate accidental mutations is irrelevant, because no matter how irrational evolution becomes, even if there were no evidence for it, the theory would still be believed:
Even if there were no actual evidence in favor of the Darwinian theory ... we would still be justified in preferring it over rival theories [creationism].
Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (NY Norton, 1986), 287, emphasis in the original.
Here, Dr. Dawkins appears to characterize evolutionists as people who will believe what they choose to believe even if there is no evidence to support that belief. He is correct in his assessment of evolutionists. Because they obviously believe what they believe for reasons other than actual evidence.
Discoveries published in 2012 show that DNA is vastly more complex that even that.
Previous research showed that the DNA molecule provided instructions for the structure of 90,000 of separate proteins. The instructions for these 90,000 proteins comprise only 7% - 26% of all of DNA. Darwinian theorists did not know how the remaining 74% - 93% of the DNA was used, so they referred to it as "junk" left over by evolution. They argued that the "junk" was evidence of evolution and was left over from previous incarnations of humans.
However, new discoveries have shown that the junk DNA is not junk at all, but is transcribed as RNA and contains instructions for the application of other chemicals that DNA encodes. Rather than "junk" it is the tip of an iceberg of vast complexities and interactions between chemicals that have defined and encoded in the DNA molecule.
"Biology’s new glimpse at a
universe of non-coding DNA — what used to
be called ‘junk’ DNA — has been fascinating
and befuddling. Researchers from an international
collaborative project called the Encyclopedia
of DNA Elements (ENCODE) showed
that in a selected portion of the genome containing
just a few per cent of protein-coding
sequence, between 74% and 93% of DNA was
transcribed into RNA2. Much non-coding
DNA has a regulatory role; small RNAs of different
varieties seem to control gene expression
at the level of both DNA and DNA transcripts
in ways that are still only beginning to become
clear. “Just the sheer existence of these exotic
regulators suggests that our understanding
about the most basic things — such as how a
cell turns on and off — is incredibly naive,” says Joshua Plotkin, a mathematical biologist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia."
Life is Complicated, Erica Hayden (Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010)
Each molecule may have numerous different regulatory functions and cascade into a maze of interactions
Even for a single molecule, vast swathes of messy complexity arise ... biologists have shifted to studying the p53 network [the application of p53, a protein molecule] as depicted in cartoons containing boxes, circles and arrows meant to symbolize its maze of interactions.
Life is Complicated, Erica Hayden (Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010)
This previously misunderstood "junk" element of DNA is far from junk. It is the blueprint for the construction of vast networks of complex instructions relating to the implementation of the chemicals that other portions of the same DNA 
molecule define.
"When we started out, the idea was that signaling pathways were fairly simple and linear," says Tony Pawson, a cell biologist at the University of Toronto in Ontario. "Now, we appreciate that the signaling information in cells is organized through networks of information rather than simple discrete pathways. It is infinitely more complex."
. . .
A new discipline - systems biology - was supposed to help scientists make sense of the complexity ... So far all these attempts have run up against the same road-block: there is no way to gather all the relevant data about each interaction ...
Life is Complicated, Erica Hayden (Nature, Vol. 464, 1 April 2010)
In September of 2012 a major study published its findings that most of the "junk" DNA is composed of chemical switches that turn on and off the protein (genes) at the appropriate times during a person's lifetime. So the junk DNA is not junk at all.
The University of Washington summarizes an article written in the September 5, 2012 issue of Nature Magazine showing that each gene has perhaps a dozen of these switches and there are millions of switches.1
They then used a powerful computer to resolve millions of protein footprints. In total, they identified 8.4 million such footprints along the genome, some of which were detected in many cell types. Next, they compiled all of the short DNA sequences to which the proteins were docked. They analyzed them using a software algorithm that required hundreds of microprocessors working simultaneously. This revealed that more than 90 percent of the protein docking sites were actually slight variants of 683 different DNA words — essentially a dictionary of the genome’s programming language. UW today (University of Washington web magazine), September 5, 2012.
In addition to the billions of letters in the DNA ladder and the 90,000 proteins that they describe, and produce, we now see that there are millions of other instructions that switch the proteins (the genes) on and off at the appropriate time.
Are we to accept that these millions of switches also evolved by a series of these amazing accidental mutations as well? One can believe that accidents and dying animals did this only if one initially assumes that there is no Creator. But if one begins with a tabla raza with no presumption or belief about a Creator, the conclusion is obvious. Accidents and dying animals did not inscribe the correct formulae of 90,000 proteins upon a molecule.
Once the scientist says, "I can't accept an unseen intelligence, so I will rely on evolution no matter what I have observed" he has breached the integrity of the scientific method and based his science not upon observation but upon a personal theological belief.
CONCLUSION
The formulae for 90,000 essential human proteins are written in a code into a molecule that is 3 meters long; a brain encompassing an organized nano-network containing molecular wiring that is 109,361 miles in length (176,000 kilometers) (see circuits), which operates at lightning speed (actual speed of a human brain is unknown but a fly's brain operates at 1,000,000,000,000 cycles per second when resting) (see circuits); a brain with an electrical network that is as large as the leaves on the trees in a forest half the size of the U.S. (see If You Believe in Evolution); a shark with an electrical perception so sensitive it can perceive the current of a AA battery with one pole in Florida and the other pole in New York (see shark): all of this and much more was allegedly created by just fiddling around:
"The idea [of evolution] is simply that you fiddle around and you change something and then you ask, Does it improve my survival or not? And if it doesn't, then those individuals die and that idea goes away. And if it does, then those individuals succeed and you keep fiddling around, improving."
Dr. Howard Berg, biologist
Evolution, National Geographic, November 2006)
You ran out of time 4 billion years ago, Dr. Berg. The unobserved-accidental-mutation theory (the fiddling around theory) was fine in the 19th Century. But now, discoveries of inconceivable complexities have left it far behind.
The inscription of 90,000 human proteins upon a molecule (or the creation of the human cortex) by fiddling around is the most illogical explanation coming from any intelligent human since the scientific community believed that the world was sitting on the back of a giant turtle. Such a theory is logical only to those who presume ab initio that there is no God - and fit their biology to suit both their religion and their endowment.
The Creator will make Himself known to you if you wish. See Believe in God - but How?.