5. From Bacteria to Human Beings (2)

☼ Exhibit #6: No Mechanism for Species to Evolve

For real evolution to occur, however, one species must change – evolve – into another species. This new species needs to have a set of genes different from that of the original species. Recently much is learned on how DNA causes genetic mutation and about repairs and replication of DNA.  Evolution claims that when small errors occur (also called genetic mutations) genetic information (DNA/genes) from the parents to the offspring is changed, deleted or added. What is genetic mutation? Genetic mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation or viruses. Genes are changed or deleted or new ones are created. These revised/new genes allow new characteristics to develop in the species. This process is controlled wholly by chance. Errors in the copying process can be neutral, positive or negative.

If these characteristics are beneficial (favorable mutations), evolution claims that natural selection will ensure that these new characteristics will be favored and the species will evolve. The less favorable mutations are removed from the gene pool. In evolutionary biology natural selection is the force that transforms species into other species by helping select/keep favorable changes caused by mutations which occur during reproduction.

Neutral mutations are the genetic changes that do not influence the fitness of either the species or the individuals within the species. The overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is able to reverse most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated cells.

DNA repair is a built-in mechanism that “proofreads” itself during replication. During reproduction the offspring gets a complete set of DNA from each parents. Of the two strands on the pair of chromosomes (see figure 6-1)[3], one strand is passed from the father and one from the mother. If a gene on one strand is “damaged,” it is neglected and only the healthy genetic instructions on the other strand will be used. If both strands are healthy various dominancy mechanisms control how the characteristics of parents are passed on to the offspring. Only if both strands are damaged at the same location on the DNA, there will be a possible mutation effect.

This immediately raises an important question: If genetic mutation is the mechanism of change, why would this process essential to make evolution possible, develop a mechanism that would repair itself and actually prevent change? That just does not seem to make any logical sense,

It is very important to understand that each of these mutations is a very small step and occurs completely randomly at the level of DNA base pairs (DNA letters). For any new characteristic to form, a significant number of subsequent mutations are needed to evolve into a new gene or significantly revised gene. Since this is controlled only by random chance, many generations would be required spanning extremely long periods of time.

For this to occur, the DNA of the original species must mutate – by chance or mistake in the copying process – into a new set of DNA with better – more complex –characteristics. On the surface this may sound reasonable, but this process (also known as macro-evolution) has never been observed in nature. When mutations are observed, almost uniformly they result in reduced and damaged genetic information.

Let’s read what some experts have to say about genetic mutations:

“But in all the reading I’ve done in the life-sciences literature, I’ve never found a mutation that added information… All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.” [4]

“Mutations are almost universally harmful. In human beings, they are classified as ‘birth defects.’ They result in death and sterility. People today suffer from more than 4,000 disorders caused by gene mutations. Down’s syndrome, cystic fibrosis and sickle cell anemia are familiar examples.” [5]

“Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneous change of even two amino acid residues into one protein is totally unlikely. …One could think, for instance, that by constantly changing amino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible to change the entire sequence substantially…These minor changes, however, are bound to eventually result in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to perform its previous function but has not yet begun its ‘new duties’. It is at this point that it will be destroyed – along with the organism carrying it.” [6]

 

Genetic mutations occur, but only rarely. Can we quantify how rare this really is? Research[7] shows most non-lethal mutations are neutral. That is, they have no discernible effect on the characteristics of the organism. Of the remaining mutations, the vast majority are harmful to the species. Depending on the species, the ratio of harmful to favorable mutations falls between 10,000 to 1 and 10,000,000 to 1.[8]

This is why inbreeding in humans (having children with close relatives) increases the chances of genetic diseases quite dramatically. Damages (“mutations”) of the DNA of related people are likely to occur at the same location on their chromosomes. So if they would have children, these children would have a significantly increased chance of a mutation that could not by corrected by DNA repair. You could say: good news for evolution, as that would surely increase the opportunities to “evolve” the human species. However as the results are universally negative and manifest themselves as genetic disorders and diseases, it is better to avoid these situations.

Based on the above, one can only conclude that the case for mutations as the driving force behind the evolution of one species into another more advanced species is on very shaky ground and lacks support from factual evidence. First, the mechanism of DNA-repair prevents a mutation at one of the DNA bases (the DNA letter level) to have any effect unless the corresponding base on the other chromosome is also damaged. Secondly, even if the mutation is not corrected by DNA-repair, the vast majority of these mutations have no effect on the organism. And thirdly, if a mutation is not neutral but has an effect, this effect is almost always harmful. Think about it: about 4,000 years of recorded history of the human race report numerous disorders, or birth defects, but no “X-men.”[11]

But Chimps and Humans are 98.77% Identical!

October 2006 Time Magazine[12] reported that, after mapping the human genome, scientists also completed the mapping of the genetic record for the chimpanzee.  They have concluded that of the approximate three billion base pairs of the human genome (this are all the DNA letters together, forming the estimated 20,000-25,000 human genes) an amazing 98.77% are the same as the chimp genome. In other words, a chimp is only 1.23% genetically different from a human.

Ape to Man

Convincing evidence, claim evolutionists, for the idea that man must shared a common ancestor with chimpanzees.  As the article in Time Magazine states: “Genetic clues would suggest that the last ancestor chimps and humans had in common lived as recently as 6 million years ago.“

Really? Is that what this proves? The fact that the genetic record of humans has very significant similarities with animals does not by itself prove evolution. Similarity in physical features between animals in general and animals and humans is quite evident. Most animals and humans have one head, one pair of eyes, one mouth, four “arms” and “legs,” fingers or claws, skin as well as very similar internal organs, digestive system, lungs, hearth, brains, and eyes, so this fact surprises nobody. In many evolutionary textbooks this is often presented as evidence of homology, assuming common ancestry and hence proving evolution. 

However homology does not prove evolution at all. Evolutionists claim homology shows common ancestry and common ancestry demonstrates homology; this is no more than a weak case of circular reasoning.[13] Creationists can build a similar case claiming homology as evidence for design. After all, if a Creator designed/created a large variety of creatures would it not be logical to expect them to share a large level of similarity. When engineers design a new transportation vehicle, is it not likely to share many of the characteristics of existing cars such as wheels, engine, brakes, doors, and seats?

For a chimp to evolve to a human being would require a total of 1.23% of 3,000,000,000 mutations of DNA base pairs. That 1.23% is still a whopping 3.69 million mutations of DNA letters! And as Darwinian evolution claims, these mutations are supposed to happen randomly in small steps over many subsequent generations. These numbers and the improbability of mutations to be beneficial make the alleged six million years to a common ancestor sound very, very optimistic!