Running head: Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

Persuasive Paper
Creation Vs. Evolution On Mutation
Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?
Gods Bible School and College
Hannah Sutton

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

2

Abstract
This is a research based persuasive paper on the topic of Creation versus
Evolution on the specific area of mutations. The main question that I will
answer throughout the paper is that is mutation is evidence of evolution. I
will examine how the evolution theory views mutations and give reasoning of
why I disagree. A significant amount of the paper I will use the research and
studies of several credible sources. I will also observe mutations from the
creationist perspective. I will conclude with the explanation that mutations
are actually detrimental and a result of the curse placed on man from our
sin.
Keywords: Mutation, DNA, adaptation

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

3

In this persuasive paper we are going examined how evolution views

mutations and I will refuted the view using science and research from
credible sources. I will also discuss what mutation is from a creationist
perspective not just how the evolutionist claim of mutations is illogical.
Before that though lets first observe what we mean when say mutation.
Merriam-Websters (2014) defines mutation as biology : a change in the
genes of a plant or animal that causes physical characteristics that are
different from what is normal
Are mutations truly evidence of Evolution? Popular science today
claims that mutations are clear proof of evolution. Mutations are the raw
materials of evolution. Evolution absolutely depends on mutations because
this is the only way that new alleles and new regulatory regions are created.
(Kimball's Biology Pages, May 1 2014) As said here we can see that the
theory of evolution strongly rest upon mutation for support for evidence. Now
it is important to note, that almost never, does a mutation gain information,
in general mutations take away from the existing DNA.
Bodie Hodge with AIA (February 18, 2010) wrote: Virtually all observed
mutations are in the category of loss of information. This is different from
loss or gain of function. Some mutations can cause an organism to lose
genetic information and yet gain some type of function. This is rare but has
happened. These types of mutations have a beneficial outcome. For
example, if a beetle loses the information to make a wing on a windy island,

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

4

the mutation is beneficial because the beetle doesnt get blown out to sea
and killed. Genetically, the mutation caused a loss of information but was
helpful to the beetle. Thus, it was a beneficial outcome. (Chapter 7 Are
Mutations Part of the Engine of Evolution?)
I think it is very important to note here that there are two types of
evolution. There is macro and micro. Macro is essentially an organism
adapting and changing to the point that it is an entirely new organism. Micro
evolution is the small adaptations and example of this would be Darwins
finches. The finch merely adapted within its own already existing DNA. There
is no new knowledge gained. The finch was still a finch, it did not evolve to a
more intelligent organism.
The theory of evolution requires genetic gain through mutations. If we
observe mutations in the human DNA the mutation either does nothing, (no
gain) or causes damage. We know that we cannot gain new knowledge or
genetic information in order for survival. There is the idea of adaptations,
and this is the organism changing to survive in different environments then
previously. However an adaptation is never outside of the already present
DNA.
Alex Williams on creation.com (August 11, 2011) stated; Ever since
Hugo de Vries discovered mutations in the 1890s they have been given a
central role in evolutionary theory. De Vries was so enamored with mutations
that he developed an anti-Darwinian saltationist theory of evolution via

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

5

mutation alone.1 But as more became known, mutations of large effect were
found to be universally lethal, so only mutations of small effect could be
credibly considered as of value to evolution, and de Vries saltationist theory
waned. When the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis emerged in the 1930s and 1940s,
mutations were said to provide the natural variations that natural selection
worked on to produce all new forms of life.
However, directly contradicting mutations central role in lifes
diversity, we have seen growing experimental evidence that mutations
destroy life. In medical circles, mutations are universally regarded as
deleterious. They are a fundamental cause of ageing, cancer, and infectious
diseases. According to Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D. and Michael Matthews, in their
research paper, the evolutionists mutation idea is that an existing gene may
be doubled, and one copy does its normal work while the other copy is
redundant and non-expressed. Therefore, it is free to mutate free of selection
pressure (to get rid of it). However, such neutral mutations are powerless to
produce new genuine information. Dawkins and others point out that natural
selection is the only possible naturalistic explanation for the immense design
in nature (not a good one, as Spetner and others have shown). Dawkins and
others propose that random changes produce a new function, then this
redundant gene becomes expressed somehow and is fine-tuned under the
natural selective process. (May 2002). Refuting Evolution 2.

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

6

For molecules-to-man evolution to happen, there needs to be a gain in

new information within the organisms genetic material. For instance, for a
single-celled organism, such as an amoeba, to evolve into something like a
cow, new information (not random base pairs, but complex and ordered DNA)
would need to develop over time that would code for ears, lungs, brain, legs,
etc.
Bodie Hodge with AIA (February 18, 2010) wrote: If an amoeba were to
make a change like this, the DNA would need to mutate new information.
(Currently, an amoeba has limited genetic information, such as the
information for protoplasm.) This increase of new information would need to
continue in order for a heart, kidneys, etc., to develop. If a DNA strand gets
larger due to a mutation, but the sequence doesnt code for anything (e.g., it
doesnt contain information for working lungs, heart, etc.), then the amount
of DNA added is useless and would be more of a hindrance than a help.
(Chapter 7 Are Mutations Part of the Engine of Evolution?)
We have examined how evolution views mutations and I have refuted
the view using science and research from credible sources. Now I want to
discuss what mutation is to a creationist. From the biblical perspective we
know that God created man good with perfect DNA. However as we know
when man sinned we were cursed and since then, we would expect
mutations to occur and DNA flaws to accumulate. The incredible amount of

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

7

information that was originally in the DNA has been filtered out, and in many
cases lost, due to mutations and natural selection.
Bodie Hodge with AIA (February 18, 2010) stated; The biblical
perspective on change within living things doesnt require that new
information be added to the genome as pond-scum-to-people evolution does.
In fact, we expect to see the opposite (loss of genetic information) due to the
curse in Genesis 3. Biblically, we would expect mutations to produce defects
in the genome and would not expect mutations to be adding much, if any,
new information. Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause
a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires. When one sees
the devastating effects of mutations, one cant help but be reminded of the
curse in Genesis 3. The accumulation of mutations from generation to
generation is due to mans sin. But those who have placed their faith in
Christ, our Creator, look forward to a new heaven and earth where there will
be no more pain, death, or disease. (Chapter 7 Are Mutations Part of the
Engine of Evolution?)
Carl Sagan, in his Cosmos program "One Voice in the Cosmic Fugue,"
stated that evolution was caused by "the slow accumulations of favorable
mutations." While this may be the current popular theory, real science
disagrees. The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the
God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created
"very

good"

and

have

degenerated

from

there.

Genetic

science

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

8

demonstrates that the absolutely essential ingredient for the origin of life is
an infinite Intelligence. Of all the origin stories, only one contains this
essential ingredient--Genesis 1. Barney Maddox, M.D (2007) Mutations: The
Raw Material for Evolution?
I conclude that mutations are not evidence for evolution merely the
changing and/or loss of already present DNA. Mutations are actually
evidence for creation. From the evolutionist perspective mutations cause
more questions than answers. With a biblical perspective it all fits. Mutations
are an effect of the curse from sin.

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

9

Annotated Bibliography Persuasive

Creation Vs. Evolution On Mutation
Bodie Hodge. (February 18, 2010). Are Mutations Part of the Engine of Evolution?.
Retrieved from https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/mutations/are-mutations-partof-the-engine-of-evolution/

Summarize This article looks at mutations in more detail and see if they
provide the information necessary to support pond-scum-to-people evolution,
or if they confirm Gods Word in Genesis
Asses I found this site to be very credible, objective and useful. This is
exactly the type of resource I was hoping to find.
Reflect I think this article fits in well with my research. This article helps me
shape my argument not only biblically but also scientifically.

Alex Williams. (August 11, 2011). Mutations: evolutions engine becomes evolutions
end!. Retrieved from http://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

Summarize This article is extensive research on the destruction of

mutations. All multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome
decay because the deleterious mutation rates are so high, the effects of the
individual mutations are so small, there are no compensatory beneficial
mutations and natural selection is ineffective in removing the damage.
Asses This article has so much information in it. I think it very useful.
Reflect This site might be slightly biased towards creationism but still
helpful.

Jonathan Sarfati, Ph.D., Michael Matthews (May 2002). Refuting Evolution 2.

Retrieved from
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2-chapter-5-argument-some-mutations-arebeneficial

Summarize This article covers the idea of increased amounts of DNA dont
mean increased function
Asses This source will be useful but I probably wont use it as much as the
other resources because it is a lot of information.
Reflect I think this article can be useful for support for the defense of the
argument of creationism on mutations and genes.

E. Calvin Beisner, M.A. (1987). Mutation Fixation: A Dead End for Macro-evolution.
Retrieved from http://www.icr.org/article/270/285/

Summarize - This article covers the nine conditions for mutation fixation.
Asses - I think this article will be very useful, it is clear and organized in a way
that is easy to understand.
Reflect - I think this article will fit in my research well.

Are Mutations Evidence of Evolution?

10
Barney Maddox, M.D.( 2007). Mutations: The Raw Material for Evolution? Retrieved
from http://www.icr.org/article/mutations-raw-material-for-evolution/

Summarize - The perpetuation of the Darwin myth clashes with reality--the

God-created reality--where living things and their genomes were created
"very good" and have degenerated from there.
Asses This article is really informative and it is very useful.
Reflect I think this article is will help shape my research because it uses
science as all its defense.