Genetics – Science Against Evolution

What is Theorized 
The basic philosophy of evolution is that gradual change occurs over millions of years to evolve one species into another. This mutation occurs at the genetic level. In order for evolution to be possible, new information must be added to the gene code that creates new traits and eventually changes the species into a new species. This must be done without damage to the species. All mutations must be positive mutations or they will begin to destroy the species. The burden of proof rests upon evolutionists to show with observable science that positive mutations can and do occur.

How it Works
One strand of Human DNA within each cell could stretch out 6 feet in length. It contains 3 billion pairs of DNA subsets and 46 chromosomes, and yet fits within one microscopic cell. If you covered a pinhead with DNA, the information contained in its code could fill up enough books to stack one on top of another and reach the moon 500 times. Every living organism – both plants and animals – have the blueprint of every function of their body written in this code. DNA tells every cell in your body how to build its structure, manufacture proteins and carry out its functions necessary for life to exist.

DNA is a four-letter alphabet that can create a possible 64 ‘words’. Each strand of the code is constructed like a micro-sentence. The ‘word’ is three letters long and has a code that tells the interpreting key to ‘begin here’ and ‘end here’. Each letter is represented by one of these specific proteins: adenine, thymine, guanine, or cytosine. These are labeled in diagrams simply as A, T, G, or C. Most cells in your body divide and multiply many times during your lifetime. Each time a cell multiplies, each strand of DNA must be duplicated into two exact copies. Any errors in this copy becomes a mutation in the cell. Mutations are plainly observed in science and this problem has never been in dispute. The dispute is over positive mutations which is not observed in science but is necessary for the evolution model. Howard Hughes Medical Institute gives us this explanation:

We each inherit hundreds of genetic mutations from our parents, as they did from their forebears. In addition, the DNA in our own cells undergoes an estimated 30 new mutations during our lifetime, either through mistakes during DNA copying or cell division or, more often, because of damage from the environment.

What mutations do we see in people? Cancer is a mutation. A cell becomes damaged due to toxins, radiation or other triggers and as it divides, it creates more cells that the body cannot control until the body is destroyed or the cells eradicated through medical treatment. Many mutations can also be passed on to children. Any medical questionnaire will ask if immediate members of our families have suffered from heart problems, cancer, mental illness or any number of potential health problems. The reason for these questions is that if our parents suffered from these mutations, there is a possibility that we could have inherited the tendency to contract these illnesses as well.

Each year medical research discovers more genetic related diseases. As of this writing, there are over 4,000 known genetic diseases (The National Institute of Health says there are 6,000 including rare diseases and disorders). Cystic Fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, hemophilia, leukemia, and sickle-celled anemia are examples of genetic mutations that are passed down as genetic related diseases. Each year the list grows longer. Howard Hughes Medical research makes this statement about genetic mistakes:

Considering the difficulties involved–the 6 feet of DNA in a human cell consists of 6 billion subunits, or base pairs, coiled and tightly packed into 46 chromosomes, all of which must be duplicated every time a cell divides–our general state of health is something of a miracle.

How Mutations are Passed On
Consider the evolution claims that it is only a short step from man’s closest ancestor. It is often stated that human DNA is only 2% different than our closest ‘related’ ape. Because it sounds simple, it appears to be feasible. However, when we consider that we have 3 billion pairs of DNA, that 2% becomes 60 Million new pairs of DNA that must be inserted through positive mutations. Each new rung of information must be a properly organized subunit with the stop and start codes and be clearly interpreted by the ‘key’ which is used to instruct the cell’s development. Depending on which argument you look at, man supposedly split from our common ancestors around 500-600 thousand years ago. Some argue that this common ancestor could not be farther back than 50 thousand years. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences published an article by Giorgio Bertorelle (University of California, Berkley), and Bruce Rannala (Department of Ecology and Evolution, State University of New York) which tracked the genetic disease, Cystic Fibrosis to determine trace modern populations back to a common source. Douglas J. Futuyma argues the opposite. As a die-hard evolutionists, he sticks to the strictest millions of years ideology and claims that we share a common ancestor 6 million years ago.

This means man needs 10 positive mutations per month to achieve what evolution requires if 500-600 thousand years are correct. If the 50 thousand year theory is true, that rate increases to 100 mutations per month. If Futuyma’s numbers are chosen, then we drop the mutation rate to 1 new pairs of DNA per month per month to achieve evolution’s goal. We should still see man and all other species visibly transforming and observable in science. We have already seen that negative mutations cause disease in the species, but we need positive mutations without diseased ones tagging along.

To understand this fully, let’s look at how mutations are passed along. Generally speaking, there are two types of genes – dominant and recessive. To put this in elementary terms, I have heard this illustrated like a twin engine airplane. A recessive gene is in charge of production of proteins. Like the engines of the airplane, if one fails, the other will continue to drive the craft. It will not be as efficient, but it will not crash. However, if the other engine fails, the production will fail. In the same sense, if one parent has a recessive gene defect but the other parent does not, the normal gene will keep the cell functioning without a visible defect. For a recessive gene, both parents MUST possess the same defect or it will not be passed on to the children. The figure below illustrates this:

Both parents carry a single defective gene (d) but are protected by the presence of a normal gene (N), which is generally sufficient for normal function. Two defective copies of the gene are required to produce a disorder. Each child has a 50 percent chance of being a carrier like both parents and a 25 percent risk of inheriting the disorder.

Even if the defect is present in both parents, there is only a 25% chance of a genetic change in the child and only a 50% chance of carrying this to the next generation. This presents a huge problem for evolution. In the best-case scenario both parents would have the same mutation. If it were possible to create a positive mutation in the gene code and both parents carried the exact same mutation, this still only leaves a 25-50% chance of passing the mutation on. If both parents do not have the defect, the odds of passing a mutation fall well below 25%. Even if a child carries the mutation, it will not produce a new trait on its own. It must sit in the background until another parent carrying the same gene arrives on the scene. Even so, the odds are still against evolution. Compound this problem by 60 Million mutations and the odds of us evolving from a common ancestor of ape to where we are becomes staggering.

To understand Dominate genes, let’s go back to the twin-engine airplane. If recessive genes represent the engines that drive the plane, a dominant gene represents the structure of the plane (or gene). A twin-engine airplane can remain airborne with only one functioning engine, but it cannot fly with only one wing. A dominant gene tells the cell in an organism how to build its structure. If a dominant gene is inherited, a genetic disorder will occur. Look at the illustration below:

The affected parent has a single defective gene (D), which dominates its normal counterpart (n). Each child has a 50 percent risk of inheriting the faulty gene and the disorder. Since each parent only provides half the genetic material, there is a 50% chance that the child will not inherit the defect. As we can see, even if a mutation is a dominant gene, there is still only a 50% chance that it will be passed on. Also keep in mind that these mutations must already be in effect before childbearing years. Defects later in life have zero chance of being passed on unless the tendency was already present. Geneticists estimate that our bodies mutate negatively 30 times in an average life. This is one of the reasons why birth defects are higher risks when the parents are 35 and older. Only mutations present during those childbearing years will have any chance of affecting the next generation.

What is Observed
Micro-evolution is a fact of science. Micro information is simply the rearranging of genetic information that is already present. A child may be born with blond, brown, red, or black hair. Hair could be curly, straight or a combination of the two. However, hair is still hair and no new information has been added to the genes. Micro-evolution can also be a loss of information. We often see evolutionists point to things like cave fish that have no eyes and claim this is evidence of evolution in action. However, evolution requires new information, but what is observed is a loss of information or a damaging of information. Lost information only gives evolution a greater obstacle to overcome and sends the species in the opposite direction than it should be going to fit the evolutionary model. In every case of micro-evolution that evolutionists attempt to claim for evidence, the trait is still the same trait and the species is still the same species. (For more information on micro/macro evolution, go to ).

Positive mutations are not observed in science. Evolution requires up to 10 positive mutations a month to progress from our theoretical evolutionary ancestor to modern man. This mutation rate is not limited to man, but we should see the same rate in all living organisms. The mutations needed are not the rearranging of information, but the addition of new information. We do see mutations in science. Each year more genetic diseases are discovered. We have already seen that the average person will have 30 negative mutations in their lifetime and that most of these will occur later in life after the child-bearing years and will not affect our descendants. The question must be asked – where are the 10 positive mutations a month? Science does not even observe 10 negative mutations per month and zero positive mutations have been observed where new information is added to the genome. When evolution’s leading propagator, Richard Dawkins was asked to give one example of a positive mutation or evolutionary process in action as observed by science, he could not name one. Pro-evolutionary ‘Atomic Scientists’ stated:

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing — good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)

Even the positive mutations heralded by evolutionists are simply the rearranging of information. In every example, either there is no new information added or a smoke-and-mirrors illusion is created to imply that a positive change has occurred. A good example of this is the often-touted fruit fly mutations. Researchers damage the fly’s DNA with radiation and it sometimes produces mutated offspring. Sometimes the fly will have legs where its antenna would normally be or some other defect. One supposed break-through came when researchers produced a fruit fly with two sets of wings instead of the normal one set.

Evolutionists declared that this was proof that positive mutation was possible. What is not openly publicized is that the second set of wings is not new information, nor is it functional. The fruit fly normally has halters (or balancers) behind each wing. These halters are necessary for flight and balance. When the radiation damaged the gene, the halters were missing and in its place was another set of wings produced by scrambled DNA, which was ‘borrowed’ from the code that was already present. These wings do not have muscles, therefore they cannot aid in flying. The weight change and the absence of halters leave the fly helpless. Outside of the lab, these flies could not survive. If anything, this proves that evolution is impossible. Without fully functional wings, a fly cannot fly. Without functional antennae, the fly cannot detect scents that it must find to locate food or a mate. Crippled fruit flies do not prove evolution, but it does cast a lot of doubt on evolutionary theory.

Negative mutations are frequently observed. With each negative mutation, the species begins its descent from evolution rather then ascending to it. A cave fish with no eyes has less complexity than it did in the past. If information is becoming damaged or lost, how does this help evolution? Scientific observations prove that organisms are drifting away from the direction that evolution demands living things to rise toward.

If each year, more negative mutations occur and the observation of new genetic diseases increase, where does this leave evolution? Shouldn’t evolution be streamlining the DNA code rather than scrambling it? Does a hemophilic (inability to stop bleeding) increase or decrease the chance for survival? Does Cerebral Palsy increase or decrease the chance of passing genes to the next generation? Today, an estimated 1 in 25 descendants of North Europeans are carriers of the defect that causes Cystic Fibrosis. 1 in 12 Blacks across the globe carry the Sickle Cell Anemia genetic defect. Of course those who actually contract the disease will be much lower because it takes both parents passing on the gene before a child can contract it. My point is that the increase in the number of carriers of genetic diseases proves that we are distancing ourselves from the ideal demanded by evolution. Evolution can’t explain this dilemma, but creation can. The Bible teaches that man and all of creation were created perfect. The curse of sin is the cause of death, disease and suffering. If the Bible is true, we should see mankind drifting away from the perfect creation that we were intended to be. If evolution is true, we should see mankind perfecting and overcoming our defective past. These two worldviews are in direct contradiction to each other. Observable science confirms scripture but contradicts evolution.

Clearly, if we take an honest approach to science, what is observed points to creation and denies evolution. Genetics is just another example of this fact.

Eddie Snipes