DNA Mechanics Erroneously Linked to Evolution

A new study conducted at Duke University reveals some interesting detail about RNA which is the messenger that delivers amino acids to protein machinery.  They used yeast as their subject and an X-ray machine to break up the chromosomes causing damage. Then they spent time studying how it was repaired. The DNA used sequences (specified complexity) located on different chromosomes rather than just re-joining the damaged parts back together. Evolutionists hailed this as proof that mutations causes new species as one just reads the title of the article. I generally tell creationists and evolutionists alike, what neo-Darwinists argue about variants (details not main principle) now may not be relevant later on. It happens many times in evolutionary science.

The biggest hurdle when it comes to the hypothesis of evolution is mutations, because most mutations are harmful and often times leads to disease or death.  As a result, some scientists are using other methods, professor of cell and developmental biology Jay E. Mittenthal states; “We are using the techniques of phylogenetic analysis that systematicists used to build the tree of life, and we are applying it to a biochemical problem, a systems biology problem.” The data of course is not a problem with the Creationist model as it doesn’t require mutations for creating life or other forms of life. It’s one of the aspects that shows a designer. The recent interpretation of the study does finally address the issue (problem for evolution) as contained in a secular website known as; Genetic Archaeology“On rare occasions, the development of one of these new chromosome structures is beneficial, but more often DNA changes can be detrimental, leading to problems like tumors. This comment brings back their findings into prospective as the story was hyped up. The following up to this comment shows the storytelling that goes on in evolution; “Every so often the rearrangements may be advantageous,” Argueso said. “Those particular differences MAY prove to be more successful in natural selection and eventually you MAY get a new species.”

The speculative conclusions are wrong but it now gives the reader a more factual view of the discovery.  Unlike the title and caption which leads a person to believe they have found evidence of mutations that would change the animals on the upper scale of the evolutionary tree into a new species. One can only conclude realistically that their interpretation is nothing more than inclusive (storytelling using *circular reasoning). Was the yeast turning into another species, did they actually observe it? Answer: No. Well how do they know the “rare” occurrence is able to transform the animal? Answer: They don’t. How do they know the “rare occurrence” would happen on a much larger scale? No evidence to support that either.  Just because it’s happens on a very small scale, and on rare occasions doesn’t mean it’s a discovery for the evolutionary tree. On the other hand (the creationist side) it’s a plain fact with observational science to back it up, that the vast majority of mutations are harmful making another reason why evolution doesn’t hold up and confirming a intelligent designer namely God who is responsible for creating life.

**“Even if all the data point to an intelligent designer, such an hypothesis is excluded from science because it is not naturalistic.”  –Dr. Scott Todd, of Kansas University in Nature magazine, Vol. 401, 30 September 1999, p.423

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s