According to evolutionary biologists, mutations play a crucial role in evolution, and without mutations, there could be no evolution. But when we scrutinize this theory, problems arise. This peer reviewed article from Nature is a prime example, and I’d suggest it calls evolution into question.
Mutations certainly do occur, but they’re often detrimental because something is broken. When DNA is not copied correctly, an organism may suffer a genetic mutation leading to a disability, or develop a sickness or disease leading to death or preventing that organism from reproducing. Other mutations could be neutral, whereas the organism isn’t affected in any discernable or obvious way. Lastly, a mutation could be beneficial if it happens to help an organism survive and reproduce. But there’s often a cost associated with these kinds of mutations, particularly when the organism has to compete with healthy members of its own species.
A good example of a beneficial mutation would be a colony of beetles on a windy island. Many of the beetles might get blown out to sea and die. But when a mutation produces wingless beetles, suddenly they have an advantage over the winged beetles because, eventually, only the wingless beetles haven’t been blown out to sea to die. But keep in mind that this survival mutation was caused by a loss of information- such as a broken gene blocking the wings from developing. Such a beneficial mutation, however, doesn’t explain how wings appeared within the beetle’s genome in the first place.
Evolutionists believe mutations occur randomly throughout the genome, and this provides the raw material for evolutionary change. Mutations, nonetheless, don’t evolve new body plans out of necessity because there is no forethought, purpose, direction or intelligence behind it. Evolutionists believe new body plans evolve naturally, whereby the mutation just happens to be beneficial, and so the mutation is passed along to the next generation. The article in question, however, discusses research on a flower called Arabidopsis thaliana, and it calls into question these evolutionary assumptions.
In this study scientists found that mutations don’t occur as expected. They discovered that mutations occur less in certain parts of the genome, such as gene-coding regions, which are essential to the organism. Since these areas of the genome have lower mutational rates, this reduces the number of detrimental mistakes. Therefore, the authors conclude that this challenges the current paradigm regarding mutations being directionless.
As a creationist, I find this unsurprising. This is what creationists have said all along. God designed organisms within a complex genome. Therefore, they are preprogrammed to respond to changing environmental factors and produce offspring capable of surviving these challenges.
In other words, there’ s something going on within the genome that encourages certain types of mutations in certain places so that the organism’s offspring are better equipped to survive in their environment. We find purpose built into the genome. This demonstrates intelligent design, although the authors don’t use that term.
Further, none of this leads to the evolution of novel body plans. Featherless organisms won’t sprout feathers if the instructions for feathers aren’t coded into the genome in the first place. Mutations could alter fur to make a canine better suited to survive cold weather, but it won’t produce fur in an animal that has never had the genes for fur (like a turtle). This is all about gene function and regulation.
This study is a problem for evolution for numerous reasons. If mutations are constrained to certain regions within the genome, then, even with millions of years, that’s not enough time to produce all the novel body plans required by evolution. There simply aren’t enough mutations occurring to provide the raw material needed. This evidence demands a much longer time frame in order for one kind of organism (dinosaurs) to evolve into another kind (birds). Further, failed predictions are the sign of a bad theory. Good theories are supported by successful predictions.
Lastly, none of the mutations in this study amount to anything more than speciation, which is what creationists expect. The plant being studied isn’t evolving into something else, which is truly what evolution requires. Simple changes don’t produce the complex information or instructions required to support evolution.
So rather than producing evidence for evolution, this article does two things: 1: it refutes evolution. 2: it affirms God’s creation of animals according to their kind.
sixdaysblog 
Boring not a single citation it’s painfully easy to research this stuff and learn how wrong you are
So, as a biologist, I will point out that there are quite a few inaccuracies in this post:
Very rarely are they detrimental, or beneficial. The vast, vast majority of mutations are neutral.
A so called loss-of-function mutation in this scenario, but gain-of-function mutations occur all the time as well. For instance, a protein could be mutated in such a way that its structure changes such that it gains more function, or a regulatory element on a gene could be mutated so that its expression is increased.
Not true. We have been aware for a long time that mutations don’t occur at a even frequency throughout the genome. Essential genes, i.e. genes completely necessary for survival, will mutate at a lower rate (or at least the mutations give rise to few functional phenotypes) since a loss of function is deadly. There are also common fragile sites which are more likely to break during replication stress, and DNA polymerase slippage which occurs at a higher frequency in long repeated parts of the genome.
What you describe in the first sentence is quite literally evolution through natural selection, no purpose needed.
This is not what the study says. Mutations aren’t constrained to certain parts of the genome, they are more (and less) frequent in some parts than others. For instance, they find that “Mutation probabilities were also 90% greater in genes lacking introns … ” which is indeed a striking difference but a 90% greater frequency doesn’t mean that there are no mutations in the less frequent regions. Actually, if there were no mutations in a region, a 90% increase of mutation rate would amount to zero.
What, exactly, is the failed prediction?
For one, the plants in the study were grown for 24 generations, which is hardly enough to see speciation. Secondly, you have the logic backwards; speciation requires evolution, not the other way around.
No. This article produces evidence for exactly what it sounds like in the title. It shows that mutation frequency is not even throughout the genome, and this still fits within the theory of evolution.
There are plenty of proofs of evolution around us occurring within a single human lifespan, you don’t have to look at changes over millions of years. For example, the mutation of Covid-19 strains throughout the pandemic (and still) was essentially evolution in real-time, and cancer is a display of evolution within our bodies were some cells evolve to act more selfish, for lack of a better word.
Thanks for your response. A bit insulting, but I appreciate the feedback nonetheless. Actually, I intended to provide a few more citations, but the Berkely web pages were down when I posted. So I’ll go back and add what I can. You provided a lot to consider, so please pardon my lengthy response.
You’re a biologist? Great! Very cool. Was always one of my favorite subjects. That and paleontology.
But I’ll take issue with some of your points. I think you’re nitpicking over my statement, “Mutations certainly do occur, but they’re often detrimental because something is broken.”
I just fact-checked myself on Chat GPT, asking, “What percentage of mutations are detrimental?” And here’s the response:
“The percentage of mutations that are detrimental varies depending on the organism, the environment, and the type of mutation. However, some general estimates can be made:
It’s important to note that many mutations are context-dependent; what is detrimental in one environment may be neutral or even beneficial in another. Additionally, the impact of a mutation can vary depending on its location in the genome and the specific biological processes it affects.”
I realize Chat GPT doesn’t have a degree, but if it’s accurate, then my statement is true. The word “often” doesn’t come with a specific percentage attached to it, nor does it mean “frequently.” If 10-40% of mutations are detrimental, then “often” is an appropriate use of the term. Further, 10-40% doesn’t seem rare to me, as you stated. When I checked Brave AI, the results were even more in my favor (about 50%), and it included sources, such as the attached study which states, “multiple studies have shown that new mutations cause a detectable reduction in mean fitness.” The other study states, “researchers found that 75.9% of synonymous mutations were significantly deleterious.” So I’ll stand by my statement.
You state, “A so called loss-of-function mutation in this scenario, but gain-of-function mutations occur all the time as well. For instance, a protein could be mutated in such a way that its structure changes such that it gains more function, or a regulatory element on a gene could be mutated so that its expression is increased.”
Right. But does that gain of function happen because the genetic code has been rewritten and improved, or because the code is broken, causing the regulatory element on a gene to increase or decrease? If a regulatory switch is broken, then its expression could be increased or decreased, but that doesn’t explain how that regulatory element originated in the first place. It’s not like the mutated protein is becoming its own regulatory element, is it? The change in structure of the protein could very well be beneficial, depending on environmental factors, but ideally the genome doesn’t want any mutations because there will generally be a cost associated with it, right? Unless there was a purpose behind the mutation, dictated by the genome.
You state it’s not true that “Evolutionists believe mutations occur randomly throughout the genome…” Well, that’s what the study states: “In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome—mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes.” Therefore, mutations don’t occur as expected. What did they expect? They expected mutations to occur randomly (with respect to their consequences), and they tested it and found that was not the case. So, generally speaking, I believe my statement is correct, especially if you were to poll random evolutionists. I wasn’t referring to modern biologists, but evolutionists in general.
When I stated, “In other words, there’ s something going on within the genome that encourages certain types of mutations in certain places so that the organism’s offspring are better equipped to survive in their environment,” you replied, “What you describe in the first sentence is quite literally evolution through natural selection, no purpose needed.”
I disagree. I’m suggesting that the genome has been preprogrammed to prevent these types of mutations from happening in the wrong places. Evolution and natural selection can’t create information. It doesn’t have the capacity to do so. So the genome appears to be designed to do what it does. It’s almost as if mutations occur based on need. This is one of my main arguments.
It is my conclusion that, “even with millions of years, that’s not enough time to produce all the novel body plans required by evolution.” I wasn’t suggesting that the authors of the study were saying that. But that is the implication. The study states, “we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome.” And, “the common observation that genetic variants are found less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome is believed to be due solely to selection after random mutation.”
You ask, “What, exactly, is the failed prediction?” I already stated that, but I’ll state it again. First, “Here we test this assumption with large surveys of de novo mutations in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. In contrast to expectations, we find that mutations occur less often in functionally constrained regions of the genome—mutation frequency is reduced by half inside gene bodies and by two-thirds in essential genes.” Second, “We conclude that epigenome-associated mutation bias reduces the occurrence of deleterious mutations in Arabidopsis, challenging the prevailing paradigm that mutation is a directionless force in evolution.”
You state, “the plants in the study were grown for 24 generations, which is hardly enough to see speciation. Secondly, you have the logic backwards; speciation requires evolution, not the other way around.”
Once again, I disagree. While it’s true the plants were grown for 24 generations, there is no evolution. That’s my point. Some biologists would argue that any change (allele frequency) in an organism is evolution. But no matter how many generations we allow, the plant won’t evolve into a different kind of organism. While it may eventually become a different species, that’s not evolution in the same sense that it’s evolving into a tree or a mushroom.
On a side note, are you familiar with Richard Lenski’s E. coli experiment and how many generations have been produced without any evolution? After more than 36 years and 75,000 generations, E. coli are still E. coli. They haven’t evolved into sea lilies, slugs or fish. Do you have any idea how many generations separate apes and humans? According to Brave AI, “Assuming an average generation time of 17.5 years (midpoint of 15-20 years) for our common ancestor, we can estimate the number of generations as follows: 6,000,000 years (divergence time) ÷ 17.5 years (generation time) = 342,857 generations. Similarly, using the 7,000,000-year estimate: 7,000,000 years (divergence time) ÷ 17.5 years (generation time) = 399,286 generations.” Therefore, one might ask, if evolution is true, then why haven’t we observed any evolution in E. coli, fruit flies, other forms of bacteria, Covid, or any other organism? All we observe is natural selection and speciation, but nothing more. You sited Covid-19 strains, but it’s only becoming another strand of Covid. It’s not evolving skin, feathers, scales, eyes, blood, or fingers. It’s not evolving into an invertebrate, a plant, or anything else.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9559781/
https://news.umich.edu/study-most-silent-genetic-mutations-are-harmful-not-neutral-a-finding-with-broad-implications/
Thank you for engaging in a respectful conversation, it’s a very interesting topic and I suspect that by the end we will have to agree to disagree, which is fine. I will concede that my point about the rarity of different mutations was too pedantic and incorrect.
Still, some parts of your answer tells me that you have some misunderstandings about evolution and biology.
For instance, you ask this:
“But does that gain of function happen because the genetic code has been rewritten and improved, or because the code is broken, causing the regulatory element on a gene to increase or decrease?”
To which I will point out that genetic code is never improved, it simply changes. Mutations mean that DNA breaks and is to some extent rewritten “incorrectly” as compared to the previous iteration, but whether this ends up being beneficial or not will differ. A broken code, as you put it, can lead to an improvement in fitness.
You also state that:
“The change in structure of the protein could very well be beneficial, depending on environmental factors, but ideally the genome doesn’t want any mutations because there will generally be a cost associated with it, right?”
The genome doesn’t “want” anything. It’s a collection of molecules, its existence is determined by biochemistry, and it has no capability of having any sort of will. That being said, organisms do indeed put a great effort into not having their genomes altered, but I don’t really see what your point here is. Many mutations are detrimental to an organism, so there are great many pathways in existence to reduce the damage that can be caused, and these pathways have evolved just like everything else: because their existence increased the fitness of the organism.
Furthermore, when you write:
“I’m suggesting that the genome has been preprogrammed to prevent these types of mutations from happening in the wrong places.”
To some extent I agree with you here. The genome isn’t preprogrammed in the sense that you argue, but like I mentioned above there are many molecular pathways to ensure that the integrity of the genome is maintained. Just like all functions in an organism, this is encoded in its DNA, but this is not because of intelligent design.
“Evolution and natural selection can’t create information. It doesn’t have the capacity to do so. So the genome appears to be designed to do what it does. It’s almost as if mutations occur based on need. This is one of my main arguments.”
The exact nature of how life came to be is not known but there is interesting research suggesting that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic compounds under the right conditions. Why then can evolution not “create information”, if by this you mean lead to the formation of DNA?
I think the second half of that paragraph is very interesting, because I can see the logic you follow here, but I would argue that again it leads you to the wrong conclusion. Mutations do not occur based on need per se, but their persistence in a population is (mostly) dictated by whether they cause an increase in fitness. I can see how this can appear like there is a need which is fulfilled, but in reality there is not.
As for my point about the failed prediction, I can see that I was wrong. Still, the findings do not refute evolutionary theory, it builds upon it.
When you write:
“Once again, I disagree. While it’s true the plants were grown for 24 generations, there is no evolution. That’s my point. Some biologists would argue that any change (allele frequency) in an organism is evolution. But no matter how many generations we allow, the plant won’t evolve into a different kind of organism. While it may eventually become a different species, that’s not evolution in the same sense that it’s evolving into a tree or a mushroom.”
So now we must get down to fundamentals and talk definitions so it’s clear that we’re actually discussing the same thing here. Firstly, it appears that you disagree with the commonly accepted definition of evolution within population genetics, i.e. a change in allele frequency within a population. This is, of course, completely fine, but if you are to engage in a discussion based on scientific literature then you must make a case for why you do not agree with a given definition and argue for why yours is more accurate.
Secondly, what exactly do you mean by different kinds of organism? You say that a plant is not evolving into a tree, but trees are plants. Do you mean that we don’t see organisms evolve into highly dissimilar forms of life? Your example of plant to fungi here is perhaps not the best because while they are highly different, there are also a great deal of similarities and conserved functions. For example, since both are eukaryotes the fundamental structure of the cells is mostly the same!
In fact, the existence of highly conserved functions is one of the strongest arguments for evolution. How would you explain that highly phylogenetically distant forms of life have so many fundamental similarities, if not because there is a common relative? Evolution is iterative, we’re probably not going to see Arabidopsis evolve into a fungus. However, given enough time it will evolve into something new, and the common ancestor of fungi and plants was able to become both different forms of life. You’re comparing life as it exists now, to life as it was millions if not billions of years ago.
It seems to me that your view stems from the fact that it is incredibly difficult, if not impossible, to truly appreciate the immense amount of time that has passed since life first came to be. When we’re talking billions of years, the concept of time becomes incomprehensible. We can come up with comparisons to put it into perspective, but even then, I don’t think it’s possible for anyone to fully understand just how much that is. It’s true that if you grow E. coli over many years, you’re not going to see feathers forming or even multicellular life, but if you do it over billions of years then yes that can, and indeed has happened.
This is the crux which makes me think that we will end up agreeing to disagree. I think most misunderstandings about evolution and arguments against it stem from this fundamental inability of all of us to understand – truly understand – what a billion years really is.
As for your side note about the E. coli experiment, I was not aware of this. Reading a bit about it, it’s very intriguing, but your comparison the divergence of humans and other apes is a comparison of apples and oranges. You simply cannot apply the findings here to “real life” for one very simple reason: the E. coli is grown in a stable, unchanging environment.
You then state:
“Therefore, one might ask, if evolution is true, then why haven’t we observed any evolution in E. coli, fruit flies, other forms of bacteria, Covid, or any other organism? All we observe is natural selection and speciation, but nothing more. You sited Covid-19 strains, but it’s only becoming another strand of Covid. It’s not evolving skin, feathers, scales, eyes, blood, or fingers. It’s not evolving into an invertebrate, a plant, or anything else.”
Here we come back to my previous points. Speciation and change in allele frequency is the textbook definition of evolution, but as you don’t agree with this definition you have to make a point for yours. Covid-19 developing into different strains literally is evolution. As for your last sentence, we’re back at the issue of time. A virus is not becoming an invertebrate and likely never will, but single cell life can and has through an indescribable number of iterative changes over billions of years turned into what life is today.
Thanks, I do appreciate honest and candid discussions, especially ones that are challenging.
Now I asked certain questions because I think I have a decent grasp on evolution and biology, and my intent is to challenge you, even as you challenge me. You responded to my question about gain of function happening because the code has been rewritten and improved, or because its’ broken. You stated that the genetic code is never improved, it simply changes. You say the DNA breaks, so the original code is rewritten “incorrectly” compared to the previous iteration.
My purpose for asking the question was- is this really evolution? If so, how is this evolution? I get there are changes in allele frequency, but does this really lead to novel body plans, like, eyes, ears, lungs, and blood? DNA can be likened to a computer code (only far more complex), and if so, how would an error in a computer code improve the program so that the program is now a different program with a completely different function?
Evolutionists claim that mutations provide the raw material for evolutionary change. That’s easy to claim. But how? If the DNA breaks, I understand that could potentially be beneficial (see my wingless beetle analogy). But how did the original DNA code get written to do what it does, and do it optimally? Did it happen as a result of DNA breaks? If so, how would breaks lead to a genetic code that provides a novel body plan? I just don’t see how this works practically speaking. Is there really enough time in the universe for the organism’s genetic code to evolve so that the organism becomes a different kind of organism? What kind of genetic code would be needed for this organism (Arabidopsis thaliana) to evolve into, say, a sea lily due to DNA breaks? Is that enough to create a genetic code for such a new organism?
Yes, I understand the evolutionary concept that the genome doesn’t “want” anything. But it’s very telling that, after correcting me, you stated, “organisms do indeed put a great effort into not having their genomes altered.” Do you see the irony? As a creationist, I challenge you to see it differently. That’s why I referred to the genome being “preprogrammed.” Perhaps the reason why organisms put a great effort into not having their genomes altered is because they were programmed that way by a programmer. If these pathways “evolved” just like everything else, how does this happen? If an organism has a certain function that works optimally, how did mutations do it so ingeniously, without any sort of will? Just for fun I’ll pick DNA repair. How do mutations (broken genes) lead to the ability of DNA to repair itself? Mutations could be inversions, translocations, fusions, insertions, deletions, point mutations, frameshift mutations, gene duplications, etc. But how do they build a genetic code that is able to repair itself within the DNA if that organism doesn’t have such an ability to begin with? And is there really enough time for all that to evolve on top of all the other plans that would need to be written for that organism to evolve into say, a human? You say it’s not the result of intelligent design, so please explain how this can occur naturally. I think there is an argument to be made for intelligent design, and I think the article I linked to provides evidence, even though the authors don’t see it. But hopefully you can.
You state, “The exact nature of how life came to be is not known but there is interesting research suggesting that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic compounds under the right conditions.”
I disagree. I think the exact nature of how life came to be is known. I believe God created life, just as the Bible says. As a Christian, I believe Genesis is literal history revealed by God, and if my belief is true, then the origin of life is, for all intents and purposes, is understood. Evolutionists don’t know how life came to be because most don’t believe in God or the Genesis account of creation.
While it’s true that evolutionists don’t understand how life came to be, I find that problematic. Evolutionists believe they’ll figure it out someday, but such confidence isn’t evidence that life did come about by natural processes. Sure, there’s “interesting research suggesting” that organic molecules can be formed from inorganic compounds under the right conditions, but I’m not sure how such a suggestion is evidence that life could form naturally. It’s just a suggestion. I’d suggest that life is far too complex to arise naturally. Personally, I prefer the Bible’s “suggestion” that God created life according to their kinds (actually, it’s more of a claim than a suggestion). But why would you rely so confidently on a suggestion that is hardly meaningful? Organic molecules won’t do anything without instructions or purpose.
You ask, “Why then can evolution not “create information”, if by this you mean lead to the formation of DNA?” Yes, I’m suggesting that evolution cannot create information, i.e. the formation of DNA. Why? Because we’ve never observed information forming via natural conditions. Ever. When has anyone observed information arising from natural processes? It’s not a matter of why. It’s a matter of fact. It just is. Therefore, if we never observe this phenomena in nature, then it doesn’t make sense to assume it could happen or did happen. I realize such a phenomena is required for abiogenesis, but, other than that, there’s no good reason to suggest it’s possible. Especially when God’s special creation is a perfectly reasonable alternative that doesn’t require unsubstantiated speculation.
You say, “Still, the findings do not refute evolutionary theory, it builds upon it.” Okay, maybe “refute” is too strong a word. Nonetheless, it does call evolution into question and is a problem for evolution. I’d suggest that evolution is so elastic that any failed prediction can be adjusted to fit the paradigm.
I’ll come to a close as we get down to the “fundamentals” and talk definitions. Yes, I disagree with the commonly accepted definition of evolution within population genetics as a change in allele frequency. This definition is meaningless. Of course alleles change in a population over time. So what? A new species may arise. But it has nothing to do with how feathers appeared on a featherless organism.
When I refer to “kinds,” I’m talking about the animals or organisms God created on Days Three (vegetation, seed-bearing plants and trees), Five (sea creatures, birds) and Six (land animals and man). A change in allele frequency only produces offspring genetically similar to its parents and ancestors. No one has ever observed feathers evolving on an organism that never had the genetic blueprint for feathers in the first place. Yes, I realize no one really understands millions or billions of years, but I still don’t think time is the answer. Have we ever observed all the necessary trials and errors necessary to form something as complex as feathers, bone, blood, etc.? Evolution assumes all this, and time is the hero. But, nonetheless, evolution is assumed. The process has not been observed. So why should we believe it? I don’t think a change in allele frequency over time addresses any of this. It doesn’t explain how the genetic code for feathers came about, or any other novel trait or body plan. The definition states the obvious, but doesn’t offer anything of substance, and it certainly doesn’t imply that all living organisms are related to a single common ancestor. So a change in allele frequency in a population over time might better describe speciation or natural selection, but not evolution because there’s no evidence that a change in allele frequency can produce the DNA sequences necessary for feathers, let alone all the underlying changes in physiology necessary for an animal to attain flight. It’s just not meaningful.
You agreed we’re not going to see E. coli evolve novel body plans (i.e. feathers) in our lifetime. But you state it will happen. Why do you think this? Because you think it did happen once, it will happen again? But no one has ever observed it happen once, so you’re speculating. I’m calling it into question and saying it didn’t happen. And my comparison on the divergence of humans and apes is a good example of why. You call it apples to oranges. Fine. But it still speaks volumes. My argument is, if we haven’t seen E. coli, fruit flies or Covid evolving any novel body plans at all, then why should anyone assume millions or billions of years is the answer? Surely we should see something happening after all these generations. At what point, or after how many generations should we be able to observe the rise of new genetic information coding for whatever E. coli will eventually evolve into? If, after all these generations there is zero evidence of evolution, then why should we blindly accept that it could happen in apes to humans? Even if you suggest this is apples to oranges, there’s still a huge hurdle for evolution that seems implausible. The lack of observation is deafening. So observation is replaced with faith.
I understand we may not agree, but I hope I’ve challenged you and given you something to consider.
I will not do a complete breakdown of your answer since I don’t think it’s really necessary, but there are many points in which you are incorrect and a certain level of hypocrisy. You certainly ask for a tremendous amount of proof of evolution, for which there is much, but for intelligent design the Bible suffices.
Nevertheless, as I read your text it seems to me that you agree that DNA mutates and life changes. You even agree that natural selection applies. So, I ask, where is the conflict? Are we discussing evolution or the origin of life? Evolution explains how life changes, not how it was created. For someone who doesn’t believe in the theory evolution, you certainly agree with many of the observations which constitute its foundation.
This is one thing I genuinely don’t understand about creationism, because it seems to me that it is entirely feasible to reconcile the idea that there is an intelligent creator with the idea that life changes. Say that there is an intelligent creator, why exactly cannot evolution be true? You agree yourself that all the fundamentals of evolution hold true, so why not evolution itself?
Reading your answer, it appears to me that your proof that evolution isn’t true is:
1. We don’t know how life came to exist in the first place. Therefore, evolution is false.
2. It is difficult to grasp that many incremental changes over a vast time-span can lead to formation of different lifeforms. Therefore, evolution is false.
None of these prove that there was an intelligent creator, and none of these contradict evolution.
As a final note, if you want to read more about how DNA repair pathways can evolve I highly recommend that you read this paper: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1074552199800337
Likewise I hope that I have given you something to consider.
Okay, I found time to read the article you linked to and it leaves me with lots of questions, none of which are favorable to evolution.
It states that several contemporary enzymes catalyze alternative reactions distinct from their normal biological reactions. From a creationist point of view, I don’t find this surprising. This demonstrates efficiency. Namely, God created DNA to work this way on purpose. Why? So that organisms can adapt to various environments.
But why would evolution do this? Evolution has no foresight to come up with such a solution. Claiming that a duplicated gene provides a head start seems counter to evolutionary theory. It seems more like an intelligent design feature.
Evolution is assumed throughout the article. There’s nothing in this paper that requires evolution be true, at least not in the sense that all organisms are related to a single common ancestor. Evolution is theorized in this sense. The authors recognize the improbability of generating a new, functional gene, so they guess that something must happen to speed up the frequency. The paper is filled with “perhaps,” “might,” “could have,” and other forms of speculation.
Speculation is the only evidence provided. Speculation provides the raw material for evolution. But it remains speculation. Everything else in this article can be true without us being related to bacteria.
The article speaks of the ability of pathways to “guide” the random or “directed engineering” of enzymes. Guidance and directed engineering seems counter to evolutionary theory. But would be expected if it were designed to work this way on purpose. The authors also speak of “fortuitous” use of active-site features to catalyze an alternative reaction. Is evolution really fortuitous? I don’t think so.
However, if all this were designed, then it explains why one would think evolution is fortuitous. Further, they mention the “optimization” of new activities. Evolution isn’t supposed to optimize anything. It just takes from whatever is present. And it doesn’t really take, but passively accepts. Optimization speaks of design, not evolution. Evolution should be suboptimal.
Then there’s “preferential” modification. But evolution doesn’t prefer one thing over another.
These researchers observe extreme complexity. Biological systems work working together in harmony. They’re adaptable, with the ability to change. Flexible. This is not how evolution should be.
The authors acknowledge how surprising all this is, particularly when they realize enzymes must have “extraordinary” specificity. Not only is the specificity “extraordinary” but it’s “exquisite.”
They state that “nature was first to discover and utilize a transition-state analog.” Or maybe God designed transition-state analog, and we discovered it.
It concludes stating, “Uncovering how nature has created such a wealth of enzymatic diversity remains a fascinating challenge.” I should say so. However, I’d suggest that nature didn’t create this enzymatic diversity. God did.
I do welcome corrections, so if I need corrected, please correct me. If I’m being a hypocrite, then please point out my hypocrisy. I will consider this a learning opportunity.
Yes, I do ask for a tremendous amount of proof for evolution. Why not? I think everyone should. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. No one should blindly accept evolution. So I find evolution lacking.
As for creation and ID, of course the Bible suffices. But God doesn’t tell us to stop there. Romans 1:20 says, “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.”
What does this mean? I think it means exactly what the founding fathers of science (Frances Bacon, Galileo, Isaac Newton, etc.) thought it meant. They believed that by studying God’s creation, they could better understand God. They believed that the universe is consistent and could be understood through observation and experimentation. And to that end, I believe life is a perfect example of what the Bible is referring to when it says God’s invisible qualities are clearly seen. Life started complex because he designed it that way. Molecules didn’t just start becoming more and more complex over a long period of time until it qualified as life. There’s no evidence of that.
Yes, I agree that DNA mutates, life changes, and natural selection applies. But it doesn’t become more complex over time. The conflict arises when evolutionists claim that these small changes lead to novel, complex body plans, like eyes, ears, lungs, heart, digestive system, immune system, blood, bones, etc. We see animals respond to their environment by developing thicker fur in cold climates, but that doesn’t explain how fur came about in a furless animal. If you took four German Shepherd’s, placed them on a small island and came back in 50 years, you’d likely find the offspring different than the original parents, but none of them would be evolving baleen, flippers or feathers. That’s the conflict.
Evolutionists tell us that it takes a long time for this kind of evolution to work, so trust us. I’m sorry, but “trust me” isn’t science. Good science questions science.
The origin of life isn’t the same as evolution, but it’s important to understand both as we can’t have one without the other. If life can arise from nonliving material, then it can and will evolve. But if life cannot arise from nonliving material without an intelligent source creating it, then we can’t have evolution. They go hand-in-hand.
You say evolution explains how life changes. I disagree. Evolution is meaningless in this context. Speciation, adaptation and natural selection explain how life changes. It’s all about genetics. Throwing around the term ‘evolution’ doesn’t help unless one can point to new, complex changes and body plans, which we never observe. We’re best served by describing observed changes in ordinary terms.
We can have speciation (lions and tigers) without evolution (a deer-like mammal into a whale). But we can’t have evolution without speciation. Yes, I agree with the observations, but disagree with evolution because it isn’t observed.
Sure, it’s “feasible to reconcile the idea that there is an intelligent creator with the idea that life changes.” But the reason why evolution cannot be true is because it would contradict God’s revelation. As a Christian, I believe the Bible is God’s revelation to man, and in Genesis 1:11-25 it plainly says that God created vegetation, seed-bearing plants, and trees according to their kind, and all the sea creatures according to their kinds, and all the birds according to their kinds, and all the land animals according to their kinds. Therefore, if God created life to reproduce after their kind, then evolution is irrelevant. We don’t need evolution to explain the existence of vegetation, birds, sea creatures or land animals. Instead, God designed these organisms with diversity and variation built into their genes so that they could speciate and respond to changes in the environment. Thus, all canines are related in their various forms. But there’s no reason to invoke evolution.
I don’t agree with point your 1 or point 2. Neither of thoseaccurately describe why I think evolution is false. I’ll sum it up here:
1: God’s revelation contradicts evolution.
2: There’s no observational evidence for evolution. One must accept it by faith and without empirical evidence. Evolution is NOT subject to the scientific method (observation, experimentation, etc.).
3: The idea that an organism’s DNA was optimized from the very beginning to produce all the various species today is consistent with our understanding of genetics.
4: Life doesn’t arise from nonliving material. The Law of Biogenesis states that life only comes from life, and no one has ever observed any exception to this law.
Thank you for the link. I haven’t had time to read it yet, but I definitely will.
I think we’re going around in circles here, and I think this might be the end point of this discussion. I still have a hard time understanding your perspective because it appears to me that you just don’t follow through with the logic: genes encode our cellular functions, and genes change over time. At the same time, natural selection and survival of the fittest applies. Therefore, with these two facts combined, it can be concluded that evolution is true.
I feel like you’re not fully entertaining the perspectives I point out. I tell you that it takes a vast amount of time for complex structures to form. Yet, you still argue that because we don’t see feathers form on an organism within a hundred years evolution is false.
I also don’t think this discussion is completely functional because you’re not upholding evolution and intelligent design to the same evidentiary standard. As I previously mentioned, you rightly ask that the theory of evolution should be upheld to a high scientific rigor, which it is. You, however, claim that evolution must be accepted by blind faith, which you phrase as a criticism which invalidates the theory. Yet, for intelligent design no proof is necessary, and blind faith is all there is. For intelligent design the Bible suffices which is, as far as I’m concerned, just a book. Why should not these theories be upheld to a high scientific rigor?
Herein lies the issue in our debate, and why I think it is ultimately futile. I could spend years reading up on evolutionary theory such that I could competently answer your questions with relevant research, proof, and empirical evidence but it would not matter because regardless of what I put forth you can simply point to the Bible and say that what I say is wrong because it says right there in the Bible that it is. By your logic, I can simply point to a textbook about evolution and say that evolution is true because look, it’s written right there. I get that to a Christian, the Bible is not just a book, but if you want a scientific discussion then you have to leave the Bible out of it and ask yourself what proof you have. Because up until now, as far as I can tell, you have not been able to present any actual empirical proof of the existence of intelligent design.
In your other comment you say that the only proof presented in the paper is speculation. To this I’m inclined to ask: what do you have which is not?
Yes, we are going in circles, so I’m just now getting around to at least one more response, hoping I can better explain my perspective. You say I’m not following through on the logic, but I disagree. I think you’re guilty of not following through on the logic. Yes, genes do encode our cellular functions. Yes, genes change over time. Yes, natural selection applies. But I’d argue that it’s not always the fittest that survive. Sometimes it’s the sneaky one that passes on its genes to the offspring.
However, none of this proves evolution is true. A quick ChatGPT search identifies four logical fallacies:
1: You’re begging the question and using circular reasoning, assuming that because genes change over time and natural selection is at work, evolution is necessarily true. This argument already assumes that evolutionary processes are happening (through genetic change and selection) without fully explaining or justifying why these two facts alone prove evolution. If evolution is the conclusion, the reasoning needs to address the mechanisms in detail and show that these factors (gene changes and natural selection) indeed lead to evolutionary patterns over time.
2: Hasty generalization: Just because genes change and natural selection affects survival, it does not follow immediately or completely that evolution as a broad theory is proven.
3: Equivocation (Ambiguity): The term “evolution” can have different meanings—microevolution (small genetic changes within a species) versus macroevolution (large-scale changes leading to new species over time). Without clarifying, the statement could be seen as using these genetic and selective processes, which are more readily observed at the micro level, to suggest broader evolutionary changes without sufficient explanation.
4: False Cause: The statement implies that because genes change and natural selection occurs, evolution must follow. However, genetic change and natural selection are not, on their own, the only requirements for evolution to occur.
So, no, it cannot be concluded that evolution is true based on those factors. Consider, we’re discussing two competing theories: Evolution vs. creation. All of the above statements can be true without evolution being true. And by evolution I’m referring to the theory that all living organisms are related to a single common ancestor. Evolution in the sense of scales evolving into fur or feathers. Your statements can be true without dinosaurs being able to evolve into birds. Fruit fly experiments demonstrate that fruit flies produce offspring that are fruit flies. But these fruit flies don’t evolve any novel body plans, like feathers. They never evolve anything that isn’t already present in the organism’s genome. Sure, there are mutations, but those mutations lead to a loss of information, not a gain in complex information, such as coding for a backbone. You’re extrapolating beyond what is reasonable. Aside from circular reasoning, your statements employ speculation, conjecture and are unsubstantiated.
You state, “I feel like you’re not fully entertaining the perspectives I point out.” I am entertaining your perspective. I’m just not buying into the mythology aspect. You’re still hiding behind “a vast amount of time” for complex structures. Why should anyone blindly assume complex structures can form on an organism that doesn’t possess that complex structure? I mean, that’s what we’re trying to determine in the first place. So assuming it can happen isn’t justified if we’re trying to establish that it can happen. If we want to find out if it can happen, then we can’t blindly assume it can happen, which is what you’re asking me to do.
I think you’re mistaken on why I accept God’s creation and intelligent design. I don’t think I’m employing a different “evolutionary standard.” I’m employing only one evolutionary standard, and I find evolution lacking. There is no evidence for evolution, and you have helped my case by resorting to speculation as evidence. You’ve offered no empirical evidence. And no examples of evolution happening in the real world in the sense of any complex structure that doesn’t exist in the population. All this is a prediction of creation and intelligent design, so my theories are well substantiated by the evidence. My theory is validated every time an organism produces offspring. No exceptions. So my theory passes the test. Every time. It’s not simply blind faith in the Bible. But the Bible is substantiated by the scientific evidence while evolution is simply based on blind faith. Aside from biological evolution, the Bible is validated by the Law of Biogenesis. Life only comes from life. No exceptions. We never observe life emerging from nonliving material. This is not speculation. It’s a universal truth.