Creation: Mutations Refutations Part IV
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
An Unbiased View of Darwinist Nonsense
I have been enjoying an old copy of Scientific American that lists the arguments that “Creationists [sic]” use to refute Darwinism. In this magazine is stated perhaps the most common straw-man position Darwinists use when arguing against the Biblical Account of Creation as well as the stock Darwinist answer to that straw man.
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.
On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.
Scientific American article by John Rennie, page 82
Whenever mutation is the subject of the debate, Darwinists implicitly acknowledge that natural selection alone cannot explain the appearance of new genetic information. Therefore, Darwinists must somehow explain the introduction of completely new genetic instructions (information) for feathers, life preserving secretions, highly specific and specifically complex symbiotic relationships, instinctual migration patterns, and other wonders that never existed in more ‘simple’ forms of life. Since there is no other viable, scientifically sound, logically cogent engine for evolution available, they place all their faith in mutation.
NOTE: Lately, though, mutation has been shown to be more and more of an evolutionary dead end as it relates to infusing any new information into the genome. Many biologists I have read appear to have, at least philosophically, reverted to pure Lamarkism. This does not agree with either science or logic and the stance defies even basic common sense. However, the mutation hypothesis appears to stand on much weaker feet of clay than the philosophical choice of Lamarkism, so there it is.In the process of defending mutation as a mechanism for somehow creating new genetic code, Darwinists attack that straw-man version of the Biblical creation model nicely summarized and stated above, yet they have no answer whatsoever for the real scientific objections raised by the Biblical creation account.
At issue is not the appearance of new traits, but rather of new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can potentially confer resistance, as already discussed in previous posts. It can also be shown how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise in various ways through loss of genetic information. This is cogent and to be expected from mutations.
None of this explains the infusion, addition, creation of new information in the genome.
William Bateson (1861–1926), who introduces the word “genetics” into the human vocabulary in 1909, disovered that embryos can grow body parts in the wrong place. From this discovery, Bateson theorized that there are underlying controls of certain body parts, and other controls governing where they should go. In common terms, these concepts are known in phylology as body types and body plans.
Ed Lewis investigated and discovered (and was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1995) a small set of genes that affect different body parts called Homeobox or Hox genes. Hox genes act like ‘architects of the body.’ Mutations in Hox genes can cause “dramatic” or “radical” changes. Drosophila, or fruit flies, have been subject to many experiments where poisonous industrial grade chemicals or radiation have induced mutations.
The problem is that the induced mutations are always harmful. For example, the commonly touted extra pair of wings on a fruit fly, are actually a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. They prevent the fruit fly from reproducing. Therefore, these mutated flies would be eliminated by natural selection.
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow.
Scientific American article by John Rennie, page 82
In moving legs from the abdomen to the head of an insect, we do not find any new information. Rather, a mutation in the hox gene results in already-existing information manifesting in the wrong place which would ultimately be harmful to the organism. Like more than 90% of mutations, this type of mutation would not be seen as “beneficial” in any light. The hox gene merely moved already-existing information for insect legs to the wrong place. The mutation did not produce any of the information that actually constructs legs, which in many insects such as flies, ants, and bees include a highly specifically complex mechanical and hydraulic mechanism that enables these organisms to affix themselves to surfaces.
These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.
Scientific American article by John Rennie, page 82
Perhaps the most ridiculous stance described here is that “natural selection” can “test for possible uses” of “non-functional” (e.g.: completely useless) limbs that sprouted in the wrong loci of an organism. First of all, natural selection is utterly mindless. You don’t report to nature and natural selection suddenly announces a pop-quiz. To attribute the ability of natural selection to test anything at all is merely to commit the fallacy of reification.
Secondly, such deformities would serve as active hindrances to survival and reproduction (thus eliminating the possibility of evolution entirely), just as the irradiated fruit flies that spring an extra set of wings cannot fly or reproduce successfully. Natural selection would kill off such mutated flies in a single generation.
And finally, it has been shown that the embryo develops into its basic body plan before Hox genes start switching. Gene switching in the Hox gene is meant to make very specific small scale changes and that is, in fact, what occurs under normal circumstances. This fact alone shows Mr. Rennie to be a rather UN-Scientific American in his response to his stated strawman argument.
The Thing about Genes
Macroevolution requires new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, creating life preserving secretions on Hippos, generating highly specific and specifically complex symbiotic relationships between diverse groups of living things, instructing organisms to follow instinctual patterns for migration or reproduction just to name a few.
Biologists have discovered a whole range of genetic mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA in any organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, switching, etc. just to name some of the best known. The problem, for Darwinists, is that none of them explain Darwinian evolution. They all represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information that is present. None of these mechanisms create anything new. Not one.
Yet Rennie and Scientific American completely miss this distinction.
Moreover, molecular biology has discovered mechanisms for genetic change that go beyond point mutations, and these expand the ways in which new traits can appear. Functional modules within genes can be spliced together in novel ways. Whole genes can be accidentally duplicated in an organism’s DNA, and the duplicates are free to mutate into genes for new, complex features.
Scientific American article by John Rennie, page 82
This is stated with all authority as if already proven fact. The truth is, it is quite a stretch.
Duplication of any single chromosome is almost always harmful, as in Down’s syndrome, and Insertions are an extremely efficient way to completely destroy the functionality of existing genes. Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner analyzed examples of mutational changes that Darwinists claimed to show increases in information, and empirically demonstrates that they are actually examples of a net loss of specificity, which means they involve a net loss of information.
In plants, the doubling of all the chromosomes may result in an individual which can no longer interbreed with the parent type. This is called polyploidy. Although this result can technically be called a new species, because of the reproductive isolation, no new information has been produced, just repetitious doubling of already existing information. If a malfunction in a printing press caused a book to be produced with duplicate pages from beginning to end, the resutling book would not contain any new information. Furthermore, while rare in plants, it is unheard of in animals, so polyploidy as an engine for evolution in the animal kingdom isn’t even on the table.
Darwinist’s “gene duplication” notion is that an existing gene can be doubled, and while one copy does the normal work of the gene, the other copy is redundant and non-expressed. Therefore, the redundant gene is free to mutate unhindered by natural selection which would eliminate it under other circumstances. All rather convenient, no?
Richard Dawkins and his ilk often point out that natural selection is the only possible naturalistic explanation for the immense appearance of design in nature. Dawkins and other prominant Darwinists propose that random changes produce new functions, then this redundant gene becomes expressed somehow and is “fine-tuned” under the natural selective process.
The fact is that such “neutral” mutations are powerless to produce any genuinely new information. At the end of the day, the “gene duplication” hypothesis is just a bunch of hand-waving. It relies on a chance copying event somehow taking place, then genes somehow being switched off for no apparent good reason, then randomly mutating to something approximating a new function which has never been shown to occur, then somehow being switched on again for no good reason so that natural selection can further tune it. All of this happens in a vacuum of random chance where no design intervention or plan can influence the outcome. How awesome is that?
Furthermore, the premise relies entirely upon the idea that the mutations conveniently only occur in the copied gene. The fact is mutations can occur throughout the genome. Selective mutations in the target duplicate gene would be extremely rare if they even take place, probably mathematically impossible though I haven’t thoroughly reserarched it. In addition, the larger the genome, the larger the problem: the larger the genome, the lower the mutation rate the organism could possibly sustain without catastrophic error. Therefore, it would take even longer for any mutation to occur, let alone a desirable mutation, in any duplicated gene. And, of course, there simply hasn’t been enough time (even using the Darwinist timeline of a 15 billion year old universe and a 5 billion year old planet earth) for such a naturalistic process to account for the amount of genetic information that we observe in all living things.
The Truth
The truth is that there is no naturalistic or materialistic explanation for the diversity, beauty, elegance, and dense information found in living things. None of the secular guesses hold water whether they are taught as fact or not.
The truth is that no human being either alive or dead, no matter how intelligent, has ever presented a plausible explanation for how the universe came to be absent a Creator. No one has ever presented a plausible explanation for how life in all of its diverse splendor and amazing functionality ever came to be absent a Creator.
The truth is that a secular humanist worldview coupled with a dogma of methodological naturalism colors all interpretations of scientific facts. This world view thus pollutes any conclusions drawn against those colored interpretations. The truth is that the philosophical and thus religious beliefs of secular humanism allow for an agenda that can flatly ignore facts and any evidence that contradict the humanist worldview. Contradictory facts and evidence amount to heresy in the context of the secular humanist religion.
The truth is that scripture reveals to us, and science confirms, that all creation points to the glory of God. The perfection of God’s creation surrounds us on a very grand scale. He made light and darkness, the heavens and the earth, the waters and the land, and every living thing in the known universe. He spoke it all into existence.
God made man, male and female created He them. God — not randomness and chaos — made you and I and everyone we know.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.
Gregg
Resources:
Additional Posts dealing with Creation and Darwinism
Pin It
….”Furthermore, the premise relies entirely upon the idea that the mutations conveniently only occur in the copied gene.”
.
.
No it doesn’t. Why would it?
.
.
I’m curious about what your other readers (including the ones who in general agree with you) think about the posts on mutations.
I’ve already commented a lot on this series. My guess is that most of your readers read the posts but not all the comments. (And that’s the way I write my comments, responding to the post itself more than any other possible readers, so my comments may not be written as clearly as they might be.)
….”Perhaps the most ridiculous stance described here is that “natural selection” can “test for possible uses” of “non-functional” (e.g.: completely useless) limbs that sprouted in the wrong loci of an organism. First of all, natural selection is utterly mindless. You don’t report to nature and natural selection suddenly announces a pop-quiz. To attribute the ability of natural selection to test anything at all is merely to commit the fallacy of reification.”
.
.
You’re quibbling about wording again here, not about actual biological ideas.
I’m confused by why you call this quote from the Scientific American article (described as a common creationist argument against evolution) a straw man position:
….”10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.”
.
It seems to me that you said essentially the same thing in your previous post:
…”Mutations never generate. Mutations debase.”
….”They all represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information that is present.”
.
There are a number of examples of gene families or protein families where genes and /or proteins have similar but not identical structures. In some cases in mammals these come in groups of four, one indication that there were two sets of genome duplication leading up to mammals.
If you have a set of four similar genes, similar enough to see the common structure but different enough that they perform different functions, this says to me that gene duplication followed by additional mutations in the different duplicated genes DID increase the functional genetic information.
Gene duplications can occur and individual mutations within genes can occur. Groups of genes with similar structure but different enough to produce proteins with different functions do exist. To me this says there is a logical basis for concluding that it is possible for a combination of mutations to produce not only an increase in amount of DNA but also in information.
(To discuss whether there is evidence would require picking a particular set of genes and looking into the taxonomic history of the exact gene sequences, in particular the accumulation of sequence variations in the parts of the gene not coding for the protein, and I expect you would not be convinced.)
….”Macroevolution requires new genes (for making feathers on reptiles…”
FWIW:
from:
J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev. Evol.) 304B:570– 579, 2005Evolution of the Morphological Innovations of Feathers
RICHARD O. PRUM
…..”Gene co-option provides an important molecular mechanism for the origin of morphological inno- vation in many, diverse morphological systems (True and Carroll, 2002), and feathers provide a premier example of this process. Evidently, for certain functions, it may be easier to evolve mechanisms of developmental ‘‘buffering’’ or regulatory isolation of the diverse functions of a molecular module used in many tissues over many different times in development, than it may be to evolve entirely new genes to produce a morpholo- gical innovation.”
…
“In the first comparative study of the molecular development of avian integumentary innovation, Harris et al. (2002) have documented evidence for repeated evolutionary co-option of plesiomorphic genetic signaling modules in the origin of mor- phological innovations of feathers. Specifically, in an analysis of alligator, chick, and duck, Harris et al. (2002) demonstrated that the genes for the extracellular signaling proteins Sonic hedgehog (Shh) and Bone morphogenetic protein 2 (Bmp2) comprise a functional molecular module in the anterior–posterior polarization of avian feather, avian scutate scale, and crocodile scale placodes.”
.
(ref is: Harris MK, Fallon JF, Prum RO. 2002. A Shh–Bmp2 developmental module and the evolutionary origin and diversification of feathers. J Exp Zool (Mol Dev Evol) 294:160–176.}
Hmmm, that first paragraph I quoted is worded in a way that could be taken to imply that evolution proceeds toward a goal. Of course that isn’t the case, and I’m sure the author doesn’t think that. I think it was not the best choice of words though.
No. I am defining the actual fallacy as it is written in Scientific American. You are quibbling over wording instead of addressing the point that if new features such as legs growing out of some bugs head were actually “tested” by natural selection, such a new feature would fail in a single generation. So — automatic F. Kind of a pointless point on the part of the article’s author, then, isn’t it?
.
Gregg
At what point did I say mutations could not produce new features?
Co-option assumes that the original structures existed but served a different purpose. In other words, it does not address the origin of the original structures, it merely moves the goal post of the question.
True, but it moves the goalpost out of one biblical kind into another.
In your first essay on mutations you said that mutations could produce changes in traits, but you asked:
“do mutations produce evolutionary changes on the scale claimed by Darwinists? Do they produce new traits? Do they ADD information to the gene. Do mutations explain the Darwinist theory that postulates change from molecules to monkeys?
In the final analysis, mutations don’t help Darwinian theory at all.”
.
My reading of that section was that you were implying that the answer to the question was no, mutations do not produce new traits. Rennie was using the word ‘features’ as a synonym for ‘traits’. So I do think you were basically saying that mutations could not produce new features.
.
You might say that what you meant was not just any new trait but only those traits which required an ‘addition’ of information, or maybe only new traits which were different enough between types of organisms for you to consider them different biblical kinds, different enough for you to say that microevolution could not account for their difference. I think you might say that mutations could not account for macroevolution. But since Rennie’s supposed creationist argument specifically mentioned mutation as essential to evolutionary theory, I think that’s what he was talking about too.
(in the previous comment I forgot to say that the emphasis with bolds was mine.)
…..”Macroevolution requires new genes (for making feathers on reptiles, creating life preserving secretions on Hippos…”
.
I assume you mean the substances secreted by hippos that were fairly recently discovered, hipposudoric acid I think is one of them. I couldn’t find much about them, so it seems like their synthesis pathways are not understood yet, although it was suggested that they might be synthesized from amino acids tyrosine and phenylalanine.
I think you are assuming that the genes for the enzymes to make these chemicals will not only not be found in any other animals but in particular that they will be structurally unique, not variations on genes for other enzymes that could have developed by duplication and mutation.
.
We’ll have to wait and see if you’re right or wrong.
But that’s quibbling by me, since in this essay you included the following paragraph which expresses an expanded view on traits:
.
……”At issue is not the appearance of new traits, but rather of new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can potentially confer resistance, as already discussed in previous posts. It can also be shown how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise in various ways through loss of genetic information. This is cogent and to be expected from mutations.
None of this explains the infusion, addition, creation of new information in the genome.”
.
.
I’ve responded to this at least partly in other comments.
.
I’m puzzled by this note:
…..”NOTE: Lately, though, mutation has been shown to be more and more of an evolutionary dead end as it relates to infusing any new information into the genome. Many biologists I have read appear to have, at least philosophically, reverted to pure Lamarkism.”
.
I have no idea what you’re talking about here.
But if in fact the genes turn out to be variations on existing known genes, won’t you say it’s because of a common designer?
.
(OTOH it is possible for genes to be found that don’t have clear gene ancestors because over time mutations can remove traces of unused genes in other lifeforms. So ‘new’ genes not obviously from some gene family would not at all be in contradiction to evolutionary theory.)
mutations are cause by external stimulus that cause the errors or diseases like radiation in water or unfamiliar toxins in food sources but never on their own do they mutate if so then we as a species should have lost our pinky fingers or if evolution is right we should be a bunch of different species by now with wings gills and the ability to go to space sorry don’t see it happening your wrong you can go now with the pharisees ideas.
the genome doesn’t add or subtract information within itself.it is the external stimulus that causes errors or so called mutations in a gene and cause cancers,organ failure and diseases.remember science is a theory that cant always be proven or trusted just because they got 1 +1=2 right doesn’t mean they should be trusted in all aspects of life. the best con men have all the details..
manuel, you said this:
….”mutations are cause by external stimulus that cause the errors or diseases like radiation in water or unfamiliar toxins in food sources but never on their own do they mutate…”
.
That’s not completely right. When cells divide and DNA is copied, mistakes can happen in the copying process even without toxic chemicals or radiation.
thank you for your reply but i will agree to disagree if you look deep enough and long enough you will see external stimulus. to find such things you would have to be with someone for their entire life birth to death only then can all of it be revealed, things like fluoride or genetically modified organism some you don’t even know that are gmos they will kill you albeit slowly.also all chemicals are dangerous they are external stimulus also air pollution from factories are stimulus. so you see til then its only theory on both sides of the fence.and it will stay this way as long as special interest are involved.
That’s not completely right. When cells divide and DNA is copied, mistakes can happen in the copying process even without toxic chemicals or radiation.
sorry i forget that cells have a self-destruct mechanism if they are mutated or damaged by external stimulus they die unless something externally stops this mechanism, this causes the cells not to self-destruct when damaged. their has been advances in cancer research that never hit the people certain plants enhance the bodies ability to self regulate it causes cancer cells to die and health cells to thrive so again i will have to disagree.its ok to use others knowledge but be careful you dont take it as gospel, man is wrong more than right.