Any simple life form is obviously far more complicated than a book. For the analogy to be more realistic though the DNA would be similar to CAD software in a CPU which is connected to a 3D printer that is physically creating other components (AKA proteins). The 'proteins' would create more CPUs with software and 3D printers to replicate ‘itself’ – also knowing when to turn parts of the program on and off to create all the components in the proper sequence. Oh, and they would also be self sustaining - able to generate their own power. For a new form of life to be created, an error in the CAD software or a 3D printer error would need to happen that did not adversely affect the sequence and outcome. Quite a feat for sheer dumb luck and a series of errors to pull off…
To be more precise, a simple prokaryote has hundreds of complex proteins including those needed for; DNA replication, transcription and translation, and all metabolic actions. If a typical protein is 300 amino acids long, you would be looking at coding 900 bits of information to simply specify its sequence for a ribosome assembly task. Multiply by hundreds - to thousands - to millions in order to see the awesome amount of information required to sustain this part of life. Even the simplest form of life according to neo-darwinism, the last universal common ancestor (LUCA), suggests that about half protein super-families (about 1000 out of 2000) were already present. This is just part of the hurdles for origin of life (OOL) research to overcome.
Molecular biologists have recently estimated that a minimally complex single-celled organism would require between 318 and 562 kilobase pairs of DNA to produce the proteins necessary to maintain life (Koonin 2000). More complex single cells might require upward of a million base pairs. Yet to build the proteins necessary to sustain a complex arthropod such as a trilobite would require orders of magnitude more coding instructions. The genome size of a modern arthropod, the fruitfly Drosophila melanogaster, is approximately 180 million base pairs (Gerhart & Kirschner 1997:121, Adams et al. 2000).
- . Steven Meyers
The leap in complexity from one book to the next, in your analogy, would be immense.
Perhaps it would be a stronger example to suggest that through transcription errors one great book in English would become a well-known great book in a completely different language.
A part of the problem with evolution is the very simple, yet very powerful, bias of hindsight.
Looking back in hindsight, it seems obvious that animal A might benefit from being transformed into animal B.
But during the supposed evolutionary process, the process is BLIND.
By definition, there is no intelligence driving the evolutionary process.
So if you take away the benefit of hindsight, the mutations have no way of knowing that heading in the direction of animal B will produce a benefit.
Each tiny mutation step is BLIND and DUMB (unguided by any intelligence).
This means that:
1) The next mutation step is as likely to take the animal BACKWARDS to where it was before as to take it “forward” to a more beneficial direction.
2) The next mutation step is as likely to take the animal in an IRRELEVANT, unhelpful direction which takes the adaptation in the “wrong” direction.
3) The next mutation step is as likely to involve some other aspect of the animal that has absolutely nothing to do with the line of development that we think we see in hindsight.
4) The next mutation step does not “KNOW” that it is going in an advantageous or beneficial direction.
Each mutation step is highly likely to be a LESS viable intermediate form, leading to extinction of the line.
The original animal A is viable.
The new animal B is viable and possibly better suited to survival.
However, the intermediate steps BETWEEN A and B are LESS viable and the line will die out from extinction before A can develop into B.
That is because the evolutionary process “KNOWS” NOTHING and has no intelligence guiding it.
Evolutionists implicitly assume that the evolutionary process “KNOWS” where it is heading and “KNOWS” that the end result will be more beneficial.
Looking backwards, they are unable to separate their view of the outcome from what circumstances and pressures each intermediate mutation faces along the way.