DNA Study Leaves Evolutionists Running on a Hamster Wheel
Evolution just took another hit from the very people trying to prop it up. A University of Michigan team published findings in Nature Ecology & Evolution that should make every honest observer pause. Beneficial mutations turn out to be far more common than the long-revered Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution ever allowed. Yet those same mutations almost never stick around long enough to matter.
Researchers led by evolutionary biologist Jianzhi Zhang examined thousands of amino-acid-changing mutations in yeast and E. coli. More than one percent proved beneficial in at least one environment. That rate is orders of magnitude higher than Motoo Kimura’s neutral theory predicted back in the 1960s. According to the old model, helpful changes were supposed to be vanishingly rare. The data say otherwise.
Here’s the catch that guts the evolutionary story. Roughly seventy percent of those beneficial mutations turned out to be harmful in a different environment. Scientists call it antagonistic pleiotropy. What helps today can cripple tomorrow. Environments shift. The advantage vanishes. The mutation never reaches fixation across the population. Zhang put it plainly: the outcome looks neutral, but the process is anything but.
Populations end up chasing a moving target. Full adaptation never arrives because the world refuses to stay still long enough. Evolution becomes a restless scramble rather than a steady climb toward greater complexity. One researcher described it as “running after a world that keeps moving.”
Creationists have been saying this for years. Mutations operate on information that already exists. They do not invent the staggering volumes of new, functional genetic code required to turn a bacterium into a butterfly, let alone a human being. Even when a change looks helpful in the lab, it often comes at the cost of lost or degraded function elsewhere.
Antibiotic resistance in bacteria is the classic example. The mutant survives the drug, but it usually grows slower and loses competitive edge the moment the antibiotic disappears.
Dr. Georgia Purdom, molecular geneticist with Answers in Genesis, cut straight to the heart of it. Beneficial mutations may be more common than once claimed, yet they still fail to become fixed because conditions keep changing.
Time does not magically solve the problem. Without a mechanism that actually generates brand-new genetic information, the entire evolutionary narrative collapses into storytelling. Observational science keeps exposing the gap.
The biblical account explains the data without the gymnastics. God created living kinds with complete, functional genetic information from the beginning. The Fall introduced corruption. Mutations degrade what was once “very good.”
They do not build upward. They chip away. That is why we observe variation within kinds and the steady accumulation of genetic load, not the upward march from single cells to civilization.
Scripture leaves no room for doubt on the origin of that information. “For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.”
Secular researchers will keep refining their models. They will talk about “adaptive tracking” and “seemingly neutral” outcomes. They will never produce the missing mechanism that turns random chemical accidents into the coded language of life.
Every new study that peels back another layer of the Neutral Theory only makes the problem clearer. The hamster wheel spins. The biblical record stands.
Readers who want the full scientific breakdown can find it reported at Harbinger’s Daily and examined further through the research summaries at Answers in Genesis. The data keep pointing the same direction. The Creator’s design is the only explanation that fits.
Right, to apply some simple logic here, showing how the scripture is proved true yet again ... Everybody understands, and these "experts" themselves are recognizing that "beneficial" is a relative term. But what's it relative to? They recognize that it's relative to a changing environment and world, but they stop short of what their studies also show about how it's changing. Is it improving? No, it is not, and their own studies bear out this fact - where are the beneficial mutations? If nothing else in the surrounding environment is improving relative to its own environment, yet everything is always changing, then the conclusion must be that it is worsening.
See because of Adam's sin, all of creation was corrupted. Scripture says that death entered the world, and that the ground was cursed. So that death includes the death of any and all living things, plants, animals, and not just the death of man. The world is indeed changing rapidly, but it is not improving, it's worsening. Creation is becoming more and more corrupted. And that's the part they conveniently don't mention, even though their own studies prove that it is not and could not be improving on a whole.
There is a massive combinatory problem, not just as it relates to the changing environment, but also as it relates to the interdependencies of various singular so-called "adaptations". Why does one single apparent "mutation" not persist? Well, it's because in order to persist there would need to be a combination of many interdependent mutations, all happening simultaneously. This is true not just as it relates to the outside environment, but also as it relates to the complexity of mechanisms requiring many interdependent components, within living beings. Where any one single component is not and never could be beneficial in and of itself. Right, that's like sticking a spark plug in an empty engine bay and calling it beneficial. No, it's only beneficial when it's a component of a complete and running engine. So, there is no such thing as a singular beneficial mutation. What's beneficial is the interworking, processes, and mechanisms made up of many interdependent parts, that all have to come into existence at the same time and then be set into working motion.
They essentially imply that increasing complexity is tantamount to overall improvement. When such a notion is entirely irrational, and their own studies, including the very study in question, prove otherwise.
They will always be running in circles (ever-devolving circles in fact), because they are ultimately trying to prove that imperfection can produce perfection. They are ultimately trying to prove that death can overcome death. They are trying to prove that a corrupt creation can heal and fix itself all by itself without the hand of the Creator. Their mindset is that wickedness can produce righteousness, that evil can produce good. And that irrational philosophy spills over into everything else in their life, underpinning everything they believe.