Feed Back concerning Mutation Study Contradicts Evolution


I sent this to my daughter who is working on her doctorate at XXXXXXX in nano toxicology for her to read. She sent back this response:

 Interesting, but this concept of “lost info” is addressed in most universities. Not a new idea. Too bad the researchers on the creation side can’t get some decent funding to do some studies people could be impressed with. I’m sure one could prove a lot in favor of creation, given the opportunity. Sad. 


Thank you so very much for forwarding this on to us.  Your daughter hit the nail on the head for one of the main roadblocks to creationist research.  There is a mountain of evidence showing the bias nature of the academic and scientific world against biblical creation and creation scientists.  See my article: Bias of Unbiased Scientists (http://creationrevolution.com/2010/11/bias-of-unbiased-scientists/).

I know of a number of good scientists that work in secular universities that would love to conduct research if they could get the funding.  However, not only can’t they obtain grants or other funding, in many of the situations, if the university administration knew they were creationists, they would lose their positions at the schools. 

In the cases where funding has been found, some great research has resulted that has yielded good science and strong evidence for the biblical account of creation and young earth. A couple of those examples involve the RATE Group, Dr John Baumgardner’s work creating the TERRA program at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  Some of the leading creation organizations have also manage to fund research from time to time.  Those organizations include The Institute for Creation Research, Creation Research Society, Creation Ministries International and Answers in Genesis.

Imagine if academia lived up to it’s professed foundational belief in encouraging the study of any and all ideas and theories and the grants and funding were equally divided between the evolutionists and creationists?  WOW! 


 Thanks for responding. I’ve been reading creation works for many years and am a young earth advocate.  To me, the evidence is overwhelming. 

 I think “Expelled” by Ben Stein really laid out the obstacles. Truly, there is a huge bias in academia. 

 I will forward this on to her. 


This post has to do with biogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is a proven fact, both theoretically and practically, but nothing is known about the origin of life in the first instance. The Miller-Urey experiment showed that necessary ingredients for life were present in the early earth, but said nothing about how these were assembled into a life form. One is at liberty to theorize some sort of divine intervention to put the ingredients together, but such a theory is sterile: since it is irrefutable, it can predict nothing.


What makes you think that evolution is a fact?  What do you base that upon?

Is it based upon the facts of evolutionary astronomy?  Evolution theories involving astronomy are constantly being changed and reworked with new discoveries.  If the ‘facts’ of evolutionary astronomy are constantly being changed, then when is the fact no longer a ‘fact’ and which ‘fact’ are you accepting at this time and will that ‘fact’ be proven inaccurate next week?

Or is it the ‘facts’ of evolutionary geology.  I’ve read a number of articles in the scientific literature where evolutionary geologic ‘facts’ are being changed.  Some of those changing ‘facts’ involve the re-labeling and dating of certain geologic layers in which fossils have been found.  I recall one report out of China where they dated a geologic layer at one date until they discovered some fossils which they didn’t believe occurred in that time frame, so they changed the date of the layer.  This was just one of many such cases where they date the rock by the fossils they find it and they date the fossils by the layer of rock were they found it.  Circular reasoning is a common practice in evolutionary circles. I have seen it first hand.

Or do you consider evolution to be a fact because of the ‘facts’ of biological evolution?  If you have read my series on the Simple Cell, you should see the impossibility of the evolution of the first cell and if you can’t get the first cell, the rest of biologic evolution collapses.  Is it based on the ‘facts’ of speciation?  Speciation actually fits nicely in the biblical creationist model and not in the evolutionary model.  Speciation is generally caused by the rearrangement or loss of genetic variation, neither of which are what evolution needs. 

Or do you base it upon the ‘facts’ of evolutionary paleontology?  The dating of fossils is based on assumptions and circular reasoning, not ‘facts’. 

In reality, none of these things are facts.  They are nothing more than interpretations of the facts.  You are basing your entire belief on interpretations.  Your ‘facts’ of evolution are like the sand upon the shore.  They can appear solid at times until wind or water comes along and they shift and change and eventually get washed away. 

We creationists also use interpretations; however, we use one thing that you do not. We start with the Word of God who was there and gave us His written record of what happened.  As God is incapable of lying or misleading, we look to His Word first as the only source of absolute truth and use that to help us interpret the facts.  What basis do you have on which to base your interpretations other than the opinions and assumptions of other fallible people? 


Eveolution is not fact, it is just a flawed theory . The cambrian fossil record, is a seriorous stumbling block for evolutionist theories. Carbon dating is very flawed, and even the supposed DNA evidense is at best debatable. Think abput this, the bible basically says that all life was created from dust; doesn’t tthis statement imply that there would be genetic similarilties in all lifeon earth? Just because an automoblie and an stair rail are both made of steel does not mean they evolved from the same ancestor.


Robert, What evidence for evolution leads you to believe that it is a fact and not a theory?


Raife – the evolution that Robert believes in is based on change. However, the change he uses as evidence is always a lateral or downward change. There are no verified accounts of upward change involving new information being added or created by natural means. Instead, what we see is either a rearranging of exisiting information or a loss of information. He needs to study the Laws of Information which state that information can only arise from another source of information and ultimately from a source of intelligence. To date, that has never been proven wrong.


Robert: A prediction that “God did it” is not sterile –only the mind incapable of imagination and logic.

 First we must ask the question, If God did it — “HOW” did God do it. Genesis states clearly, “And God said…” this implies that some form of acoustic/perturbation/compression wave was involved (see my paper on cosmology, and my website for lectures on acoustic biology). From this point (as is the beginning of the process of science), we can create a hypothesis: that acoustic waves/ sonic compression can drive the formation of DNA and other molecules. From the hypothesis we can create several predictions: a) acoustics drives formation of DNA, b) acoustics does not drive the formation of DNA, c) acoustics drives the formation of RNA or other molecules, d) acoustics destroys DNA/RNA and other molecules, e) acoustics does nothing to form or cause lysis of molecules (much like The failed Miller-Urey test).

 At this point in the scientific process we go to the literature and write an extensive review on Acoustic formation/lysis of DNA and other molecules. We publish a paper (for which we get a Nobel Prize ;} ) and in our discussion we show how future experiments could be done to test the theory (based on observational record in the literature, ironically Darwin failed this process).

We conduct an experiment to test our hypothesis. What do we see? Eureka! Acoustics does drive the combination of proteins to form DNA, RNA, and other molecules.

 Holy “Religulous” Batman! For our discovery and literal scientific test of Genesis we were banned from being able to be published ever again. I love science!


This is one experiment that I would like to conduct at some point. Recreate miller-Urey, and however use the sonic influence that other researchers have shown drive proteins together to form DNA, etc. Wallah! We have the theory of the origin of life. And you got it from my theory on Acoustic Genesis. If anyone has ties to ICR, or other similar science bodies, I have literally dozens upon dozens of potential creation testing experiments we can design and conduct to test my theory on creation.


Nonsense. Mutations can, and occasionally do, result in improved growth and reproductive capacity. The Swede’s negative results are not evidence, let alone proof, that negative results must always be obtained. Although bacteria do not do recombination, they do conjugation, which has the same purpose: to distribute useful genes throughout a population. Natural selection will insure that these are propagated. See: Dawkins, The Greatest Show on earth, pp. 116-141.


No serious creation scientists denies that there have been occasional beneficial mutations, however they are rare.  Some mutations that have been called beneficial have been labeled such without consideration of the mutations entire effect on the organism.  For example, I still see evolutionists listing the mutation of the human gene HBB as being a beneficial mutation because those individuals varying that mutation are immune to malaria.  There is no doubt that being immune to malaria would be considered beneficial since there are around 250 million cases of malaria each year with 1 to 3 million cases being fatal.  However, those individuals with the HBB mutation which makes them immune to malaria also suffer from the other effect of the mutation which is sickle cell anemia. Sickle cell anemia affects approximately 30 million people worldwide.  It is an extremely painful condition which is definitely not beneficial.

The main issue with mutations is that it does not provide the necessary mechanism required by evolution and that is the steady influx of new genetic information.  Mutations, recombinations, etc., do not add new information into a population.  It alters and rearranges the existing information.  I highly recommend you read Dr. Lee Spetner’s book Not By Chance.  Please note that Dr. Spetner is not a Christian, but provides an excellent case dealing with the laws of information

Feed Back concerning The Evolutionary Enigma of the Echidna


 I find this article fascinating because for me it raises a different though related question.

 If evolution does not explain the existence of the echidna and the platypus, how do you reconcile their existence with the story of Noah and the Flood?

 As your article notes, these animals are unique to mainland Australia, Tasmania and Papua New Guinea.

 How did Noah get these animals to the ark? And how did they get back again after the waters receded?


Tony – To start with, Noah did not have go out and collect the animals.  Genesis 6:20 tells us that the animals came to Noah.  Although not directly stated, it implies that God selected the animals He wanted on the Ark and directed them to Noah to be taken aboard the Ark.

The Bible does not tell us what the geography of the continents were at the time prior to the Flood.  If as a number of top creation scientists believe, there still may have been one major continent at that time.  If that were so, then there would not have been a problem getting the different animals such as the echidna, platypus, kangaroos, and other kinds of animals that are now found solely on one continent.  (Many of these creation scientist believe that the opening up of the fountains of the deep was in conjunction with the breaking up of the continents which occurred during the Flood.  Dr. John Baumgardner created a supercomputer program while working at Los Alamos National Laboratory.  The program was called TERRA.  Using TERRA, he showed the likelihood of a runaway plate subduction that started the rapid spreading of the continents.  You can read more about this model at Catastrophic plate tectonics: the geophysical context of the Genesis Flood.)

As for the Flood and animal dispersion after the Flood, we have to realize that this was a one time event that can never be duplicated.  The details of animal dispersion were not recorded.  This is an area that begs for more research from creationists, if only there was the same kind of funding for this type of research as there is for evolutionary research. 

However, from the evidence we do have, there are some ideas that provide some possible explanations. 

Rabbits were introduced into Australia a few years back.  It didn’t take long for them to have covered continent from edge to edge with rabbits.  No one believes that the first rabbits traveled across the continent, but with each new generation, the spread out further and further.  The same could hold true for animals found so far away from the Ararat region.  Immediately after the Flood, there would have been little to no population pressures to curb reproductive rates.  All of the animals would have reproduced quickly (at younger ages) and would have had more young, which in turn would have had a higher survivability rate than they do now with existing population pressures in place.  In a matter of a hundred years or so, animals like kangaroos and echidnas could have reached the farthest edges of Southeast Asia. 

One of the possible methods for their reaching the Australian shores involves a land bridge.  There is evidence of land bridges that connect Australia to the mainland as there is for connecting North America with Asia. 

Sometimes, we just don’t know how it happens.  When Krakatoa erupted in 1883, it wiped out the animal life on the island.  Over time, the island began to fill up with birds and insects, which could have flown to the island.  Other animals also began showing up.  Animals like lizards, snakes and even some mammals. No one is sure how they got there, but their presence is testimony that they did.

There is also the possibility of human dispersion.  Man has often taken animals as livestock and as pets and curiosities with him as he moved and migrated about.   Another possibility are floating islands and log mats.  Floating islands have been observed in modern times and may also have existed, possibly in larger numbers after the Flood.  As the Flood waters wiped out entire forests, the timbers could have formed large log mats.  There have been occasions when small animals have been found out at sea on small lag mats washed out by local flooding and rains. 

Do we know for sure how it happened?  No and we may never know for sure, but there are a number of plausible explanations.  For more information on this subject, I would highly recommend the Creation Answers Book.

Continue Reading on