In a previous post I asserted that mutations don’t lead to evolution. This assertion was questioned by a biologist, so I engaged in a respectful dialogue where I was told that nothing I said contradicts evolution, and he provided a link to an article he claimed shows how DNA repair pathways can evolve. So I accepted his challenge and responded, and this is my critique of the peer-reviewed study he shared.

First, there’s nothing in his article requiring evolution be true. So, while the researchers claim there’s evidence of evolution, I found an assortment of contradictions, but no confirmation of evolution. At best it describes normal biological processes referred to as evolution. And those processes are extrapolated to mean what they want them to mean. This is circular reasoning. Further, these same processes are consistent with creationism. Therefore, the evidence for evolution is speculatory because alternative explanations exist that don’t require evolution.

The article starts by claiming, “Several contemporary enzymes catalyze alternative reactions distinct from their normal biological reactions.” This is significant for evolutionists because it demonstrates that enzymes aren’t rigid and locked into one specific role. Thus they theorize these enzymes could act upon a mutation to give it a “head start” in evolving different traits.

Creationists have long pointed to biological systems having alternative or duplicate capabilities. This is called redundancy. So it’s not surprising that enzymes can catalyze alternative reactions. It’s a design feature that allows organisms to survive when one system is damaged or destroyed. Therefore, this process can be true without invoking evolution.

Next, it’s interesting to analyze the constant use of hypothetical claims in this article. When a duplicate gene occurs, the author wants us to believe it “could have” helped enzymes obtain a “head start” for evolution. This is nothing more than conjecture, and conjecture is not evidence. Just because one can imagine a scenario doesn’t mean it can or did happen. In science, a theory isn’t confirmed by unsubstantiated, hypotheticals. But that doesn’t stop evolutionists. They suggest that, given enough time, anything can happen. But I say this is just wishful thinking.

Consider, why would evolution think to give anything a head start? Evolution has no foresight to come up with a step-by-step solution. Suggesting that a duplicated gene provides a head start is contrary to evolutionary theory. It seems more like an intelligent design feature to me. If evolution were true, then it should simply describe what happens, not what they imagine could happen. Evolution is supposed to be a descriptive theory, not prescriptive or proscriptive. Yet the researchers are dictating how organisms should or shouldn’t evolve; this contradicts modern evolutionary theory.

Evolution is assumed throughout the article. The authors recognize the improbability of generating a new, functional gene, so they guess something must happen to speed up the frequency. The paper is fraught with “perhaps,” “might,” “could have,” and other forms of speculation.

Speculation is the only evidence provided for evolution, and I’d argue that isn’t a good reason to accept it. Everything else in this article can be true even if we didn’t evolve from a single celled organism.

The article speaks of the ability for pathways to “guide” the random or “directed engineering” of enzymes. Guidance and directed engineering are counter to evolutionary theory. But would be expected if enzymes were designed to work this way on purpose. The authors speak of the “fortuitous” use of active-site features to catalyze alternative reactions. But is evolution really fortuitous? I don’t think so.

If all this were designed, however, then we have a logical explanation for this fortuitousness. Further, the researchers refer to the “optimization” of new activities. But evolution isn’t supposed to optimize anything. It just takes from what is present. Optimization is evidence for design, not evolution. Evolution should be suboptimal.

Then there’s “preferential” modification. But evolution isn’t supposed to prefer one thing over another.

These researchers observe extreme complexity… biological systems working together in complete harmony. This is not how evolution should be.

They acknowledge how surprising all this is, admitting enzymes must have “extraordinary” specificity. They also refer to it as “exquisite.”

I find it telling when they personify nature, stating, “nature was first to discover and utilize a transition-state analog.” Is nature really that smart? Or could it be that God designed the transition-state analog, and people eventually discovered it?

The study 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 anything. God did. So not only do they personify nature, they deify it!

This study fails to deliver on its claims. It does not demonstrate that DNA repair pathways can evolve, nor is the study free from evolutionary contradictions. A better explanation for how enzymes work is that they do what they were designed to do, but don’t go beyond. Their features are built into an organism’s DNA on purpose. It wasn’t an accident with lots of fortuitous twists and turns. It was God’s design.

The biologist who challenged me said this: “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.” No. The truth of his statement mostly depends on how ‘evolution’ is defined. His statement is false if he means that one kind of organism (dinosaur) can evolve into a different kind of organism (bird) given enough time. That cannot be extrapolated based on the evidence. His statement can only true if evolution is defined as any kind of change over time. Modern evolutionists define evolution as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. But this definition is meaningless and only creates confusion. It’s true that populations change over time, but those changes are things like the length of fur in mammals. But that doesn’t mean fur or feathers evolved from scales. So he’s employing a bait-and-switch tactic, insisting all these chemical reactions prove that novel features like feathers could evolve given enough time. However, the evidence demands no such thing. The facts and logic don’t support his assertion. He’s making a giant leap unsupported by the evidence and employing circular reasoning.

Evolutionists believe time is the hero. They tell us it takes a long time for evolution to work, and if we appreciate the immense amount of time that goes by, then the impossible becomes possible. In other words, “trust me.” Sorry, I’m not buying it. “Trust me” isn’t science.

I believe the best explanation for the amazing complexity of life is a designer, and that designer is God. Not nature. Not time. And not evolution.