The hypothesis that the DNA contains the very specific information concerning protein folding and enzymatic behaviour leads to this problem:

**It is extremely improbable that different reading frames of the same DNA can lead to ***viable* protein parts, because a frame shift leads to a more or less random amino acid sequence.

In a similar way, it is highly improbable to find a reasonable text which can be transformed into another reasonable text by a

*character-transformation* such as for instance: a -> b, b -> c, c -> d, … z -> a.

In the following I assume that all 20 amino acids are equivalent, ignoring codon bias, stop-codon readthrough and similar. I assume also that a frame shift in a given sequence leads to a fully random sequence.

Let us call

*viable amino acids sequence* a polypeptide which can be part of a protein with enzymatic activity. Assuming a chain of 100 members in the following, let us ask how many sequences are actually

*viable*. Definitely, we can be sure that the answer must lie in between theses two extreme cases:

- Only one sequence is viable; the probability that a random sequence is viable is (1/20)^100 = 10^-130.
- All 20^100 = 10^130 sequences are viable; the probability that a random sequence is viable is 1.

In the first case we have an

*average viability-probability per amino acid* of 1/20 = 5% and in the second case 1/1 = 100%.

Now let us assume that the

*viability-probability per amino acid* is 25%. That means that at every position of the chain with 100 members, (because of mutual constraints only) 5 out of the 20 different amino acids can be used for a viable sequence to result. In this case, 5^100 = 10^70 viable sequences exist, and the probability that a random sequence is viable is (5/20)^100 = 10^-60.

The application of a frame shift to these 10^70 viable sequences leads to 10^70 random sequences (according to the simplifying hypotheses mentioned above). Because the probability of a random sequence being viable is 10^-60, we find around 10^10 viable sequences among these frameshifted sequences. Nevertheless,

**only one out of 10^60 viable sequences is able to produce another viable sequence by frameshift**.

What happens however, if the

*viability-probability per amino acid* is 20% instead of 25%, which means that at every position of the chain, 4 out of 20 amino acids are possible for a viable sequence to result. In this case, 4^100 = 10^60 viable sequences exist, and the probability that a random sequence is viable is (4/20)^100 = 10^-70.

So the application of a frame shift to the 10^60 viable sequences leads to 10^60 random sequences. Yet because the probability of a random sequence being viable is only 10^-70, it is highly improbable that one single of these frameshifted sequences is viable. Because actual

*viability-probability per amino acid* seems to be lower than 20%, not even an almighty designer could create one DNA sequence, coding for two viable (100-amino-acid long) protein parts in two different reading frames, because such a sequence is excluded by probability theory.

I'm sure that every unprejudiced person being able to understand the above reasoning must admit:

**A biology, where the whole evolutionary progress is stored in DNA and to a lower extent in other material structures, is simply impossible from the logical point of view**. Whether such a purely materialistic biology has the form of neo-Darwinism or the form of Intelligent Design does not matter.

Cheers, Wolfgang