Do mutations prove evolution?

We’re told that mutations prove you could get a certain single celled organism to mutate over millions of years and bring about new information on a grand scale that given enough time you could get a human being. What is the problem with that line of reasoning? The problem is that mutations don’t give us new information. Mutations can only take information that is already available and cause it to decay. Mutations are an example of a loss of genetic information. Let me give you an example. For the last hundred years or more now, scientists have been studying fruit flies but they are great examples of how you can mutate an organism. We have been zapping these fruit flies with radiation and mutating them in chemical ways for more than 100 years now. The reason that they are so valuable to study is because you can get a new generation every 14 days. We have in that 100 year period the equivalent of what would be millions of years of evolutionary time and what do you have after all the radiation and mutation? Do you have a fruit fly that has evolved new genetic information? No you don’t. In fact all you still have is a fruit fly. It hasn’t evolved into anything else. Mutations don’t prove evolution. That’s simply not the mechanism that could get a single cell organism to a human.

It’s often claimed that evolution is simply change over time. And since change over time can be seen everywhere, then evolution is obviously true. But highly qualified creation scientists say there is much more to it than that. For evolution to have turned particles into people, simple change over time is not enough. A special kind of change is needed. That is naturally occurring change that adds new genetic instructions.

No one has seen this special kind of change happen. Darwin’s finches, peppered moths and adapting bacteria are all examples of naturally occurring change but not one of them shows that addition of new genetic instructions.

Not one of them writes any brand new genetic code specifying how to make some new complex feature, such as feathers for lizards, for example. And since codes and programs cannot write themselves, there must have been a designer for all living things.

To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website

I don’t think macroevolution is true, not because the bible doesn’t say anything about it. I think it’s not true because there’s so much evidence against it. In fact I’ll just list five lines of evidence against it. We don’t have time to go into the details but the fossil record does not line up with what macro evolutionists say. There’s not a whole bunch of transitional forms. There’s genetic limits to change that we can’t even break with all of our intelligence. Think about breeders that try and breed different types of dogs. They can only get so far in the genus of dogs but even using all their intelligence they can’t get, they can’t make a cat or something outside of a dog. Well if using our intelligence we can’t break genetic limits, why would we expect a non-intelligent process like natural selection to do so?

Thirdly there’s something called irreducible complexity, that things can’t evolve gradually in a step-by-step process. Everything has to be in working order with all the parts in the right order in order to have function at all.

Fourthly there’s this thing out there known as epigenetic information, which is the structure of the cell. You could mutate DNA from now till doomsday. You’ll never get a new body plan because you need structural changes. Just like if you were to have a software program say it’s a home design program that could spit out a plan on how to build a home but do you have a home with just a software program. No you need structural materials like nails and wood and cement and those kind of things. So you need those things in order to have any new life form. That’s four. I can’t remember the five right now but there’s a lot of evidence against the macroevolutionary worldview that I just don’t think it holds up.