DNA Clocks that Argue Against Long Ages for Life Forms
New Genetic-Clock Research Challenges Millions of Years
by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D.
"Does a 6,000-year-old earth match the findings of modern science? Secular scientists have answered forcefully in the negative for generations. However, their arguments rest on the assumption of constant natural processes and constant rates, and new discoveries from ICR’s geneticists present a strong challenge to these claims." See article below.
by Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Ph.D.
"Does a 6,000-year-old earth match the findings of modern science? Secular scientists have answered forcefully in the negative for generations. However, their arguments rest on the assumption of constant natural processes and constant rates, and new discoveries from ICR’s geneticists present a strong challenge to these claims." See article below.
Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve
Dr Nathaniel Jeanson and Dr Jeffry Tomkins have produced a work on the heterogeneity of the human mtDNA and in other groups of organisms that argues for a separate and recent formation of those groups.They note that both evolutionists and creationists accept a biological single "Eve". Also, "both origins views also hold to copying errors (mutations) as the sole source of DNA variety." But when did mankind begin? They state "To use the mtDNA as a clock we simply use this measured mutation rate to make testable predictions based on either the evolutionary timescale or on the YEC timescale and then compare the predictions with the scientific, observed facts..." He uses an assumed age of 180,000 years for sake of discussion (insert: evolutionary appearance of man) and 4,500 years (insert: creation of man). The measured mutation rate is 60 per generation. Figure 2 shows the evolutionary estimate to be about 2000 differences for the assumed time, and in the Creation scenario about 30-120 and the actual observed to be 78 within human mtDNA. Thus, the creation/young age is more realistic to the observed data. They talk about many other issues.
Please see Chapter 10: Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve. Link below.
Please see Chapter 10: Genetics Confirms the Recent, Supernatural Creation of Adam and Eve. Link below.
DNA Mutations and the Breakdown of the Genome Argue Against Evolution
Dr Carter in the article titled "More Evidence for the Reality of Genetic Entropy" stated regarding the H1N1 flu virus "We provided data that more than suggests that the various influenza viruses that infect humans cannot survive long term, and we were the first to notice the disappearance of the human version of the H1N1 influenza in mid-2009." And then he pointed out "the 2009-2010 'swine' flu outbreak, noting that it was far less serious than expected, and that this was probably due to the fact that the virus had picked up thousands of mutations and was much less robust compared to the original H1N1 ancestral virus..." He provided direct real time comparison of evidence of gene mutation load increasing and that mutations cause deterioration of the genome not increasing complexity. See article for details.
Dr A. Williams wrote an article in the same magazine titled "Beneficial Mutations: Real or Imaginary?-Part 1". In his introduction he noted, "Randomly occurring beneficial mutations lie at the heart of Darwinian evolution. Without them there is no mechanism by which a single originating cell could have been diversified into the myriad of species that we see on Earth and in the fossil record today." But he then commented that mutations are now being classified as "deleterious" or "functional" and none are listed as "beneficial". "Beneficial mutations are not being cataloged" he has stated. Williams then stated "Human genome studies are being carried out all around the world at present and the major findings can be summarized in just a few words: accumulating mutation load and a multitude of associations between mutations and diseases." As an example he noted a study that looked at changes in DNA that resulted amino acid changes and the impact on protein function (from the human genome): "27-29% of amino acid changing mutations are neutral or nearly neutral, 30-42% are moderately deleterious, and nearly the remainder (36%) are highly deleterious or lethal." There is a profound close association with mutations and disease conditions. These kinds of studies will continue to need specific documentation correlating properties of the "deleterious" and the "functional" mutations and how these affect the organisms involved and to what degree. However, Williams report was only a summary account of the studies.
He also noted that in the same study the authors commented on genome sequences that were similar in human and chimpanzees but had 10-20% differences. These changes were called "beneficial" as the authors stated the sequences were "'fixed by positive selection (i.e. they were beneficial) with the remainder of differences being neutral or nearly neutral.'" There was a profound assumption of genetic relatedness that has not been empirically proven when the authors made this kind of statement, as it was assumed evolution to be proven-which it hasn't been. The differences could simply have been functional (without mutational change) or as humans and chimpanzees are not genetically related be the result of genetic change due to individual and separate mutations in either group.
This is a basic problem, the assumption of genetic relatedness, in reading the literature in genomic studies, especially comparative ones. Attention should be paid only to correlating DNA sequences to enzyme and structural protein functions and not supposed evolutionary trends. As well, there is information on the impact of mutations on certain metabolic pathways discussed on this website under the section "Issues in Creation and Evolution". See article below for details of Dr Williams' paper.
He also noted that in the same study the authors commented on genome sequences that were similar in human and chimpanzees but had 10-20% differences. These changes were called "beneficial" as the authors stated the sequences were "'fixed by positive selection (i.e. they were beneficial) with the remainder of differences being neutral or nearly neutral.'" There was a profound assumption of genetic relatedness that has not been empirically proven when the authors made this kind of statement, as it was assumed evolution to be proven-which it hasn't been. The differences could simply have been functional (without mutational change) or as humans and chimpanzees are not genetically related be the result of genetic change due to individual and separate mutations in either group.
This is a basic problem, the assumption of genetic relatedness, in reading the literature in genomic studies, especially comparative ones. Attention should be paid only to correlating DNA sequences to enzyme and structural protein functions and not supposed evolutionary trends. As well, there is information on the impact of mutations on certain metabolic pathways discussed on this website under the section "Issues in Creation and Evolution". See article below for details of Dr Williams' paper.
No Junk DNA
Dr Batten has written that the ENCODE data, initially released in 2007, now reveals that, "They found that over 80% of the human DNA does something, although the details of what it does mostly remain to be determined. Less than 2% of the DNA codes for proteins; the rest turns out to be like a huge control panel, with millions of switches that turn protein-producing genes on or off. And different cells have different switch settings". He goes on to conclude that this is a huge problem for evolution as it would be expected to produce large amounts of junk DNA.
Increasing knowledge regarding complexity of the structure of the living cell continues to hamper any expectations that mutations or other self-propelling processes have evolved the human and other animal and plant genomes. Design argues for a Designer.