In the evolutionary model, mutations are hailed as a dominant mechanism for pond-scum-to-people evolution and provide “proof ” that the Bible’s history about creation is wrong. But are we to trust the ideas of imperfect, fallible men about how we came into existence?
If new genetic information—required to build eyes where there are none, for example—does not occur in nature, then evolution is stuck in the water. For evolutionists, the solution comes in the form of mutations. The problem is that the only beneficial mutations ever observed do not add new information to the genome.
This study illustrates the fact that natural selection can operate on a series of mutations and even on other organisms to produce a population change with a noticeably new characteristic. Yet for all that, the result was diversity within a kind.
Human Immunodeficiency Virus (HIV) has frustrated efforts to create an effective vaccine. Analysis of naturally developed antibodies in a few infected patients, however, has uncovered a pattern in HIV mutations, a pattern that could be the key to developing an HIV vaccine.
Did a bacteria colony just prove gain-of-function mutations exist?
When it comes to people with disabilities, Christians need to rethink what it means to be “fearfully and wonderfully made.”
Neo-Darwinism offers this basic equation for evolution: mutations + natural selection + millions of years = particles-to-person evolution.
The survival of living species depends on its ability to pass on its genetic instructions, from generation to generation, without significant alteration.
If we share a common ancestor with a chimpanzee, as evolutionists confidently maintain, then how did our brains leap so far ahead in size and capability?
Evolution would require an enormous amount of change. Modern laboratory experiments have tested bacteria’s ability to change. Is this ability truly unlimited?
Lenski's long-term evolution experiment does not distinguish between observable limited change and unobservable molecules-to-man evolution.
Gluttonous bacteria on the fast track compete with biofilm-makers boldly going where bacteria haven’t gone before.
What can pink shower scum tell us about the origin of the giraffe’s long neck?
The genomic forest is harder to see than its trees.
“Directed evolution” sounds like a page out of the theistic evolutionist’s playbook. So what’s it doing turning up in an MIT laboratory?
According to one presenter at a recent Darwin and medicine conference, children with birth defects are “bumps” in the road on our way to becoming more evolved.
Small biological changes that take generations—like some birds’ beaks growing longer or shorter in certain ecological niches—can be explained and understood by creationists and evolutionists. But when it comes to explaining developmental “leaps,” evolutionists must make a leap of logic.
Much research has been done on the ebg operon of the bacterium Escherichia coli over the last 30 years. specific mutations within this operon enable the bacterium to metabolize lactose.PDF Download
Creationists have tended to offer an inconsistent or incomplete perspective of “beneficial mutations” within a creation framework.PDF Download
From mid-November, a reminder that mutations are nearly always counterproductive.
“Recent instance of human evolution!” is the cry of evolutionists this week (that phrase coming from The New York Times), who are cheering an analysis of mutations that have led to lactose tolerance in various human populations.
Scientists have “reversed evolution”-converting a modern enzyme into its “theoretical distant ancestor” in one case, and reactivating a supposedly five-million-year-old retrovirus in the other.
Recent research has shown that red hair in people often results from mutations in just one gene.
No story related to human evolution has drawn as much press in recent times as the account of family members in Turkey who walk hunched over, using their hands as well as feet to ambulate.
Did you know that living things make their own tools? For example, they use enzymes to break down large molecules for parts (building blocks) and some for energy.
Whenever amino acids can be changed at a residue position, it is generally assumed this mutation is compatible with all other tolerated residue substitutions. We show here that this cannot be assumed.