Creationism’s Predictions vs Evolution’s Predictions

Creationism predicts genetic entropy in nature, which means the DNA for humans was much better with the ancients than it is today while evolution predicts gains in function with the purpose of enhancing fitness. There was a study recently with Vitamin C which is interesting, because humans have lost the ability to manufacture it, so it must be obtained through a diet. And we are not the only ones, certain bats, and certain birds, some fish, guinea pigs and anthropoid have also lost the ability to manufacture Vitamin C.

The study was focused on why this has happened, in PLoS they say, “The ability to synthesize Vc has been reported in many ancestral vertebrate lineages, suggesting the ability for de novo synthesis is ancient.” Nowhere in the paper do the authors explain for the most part on how Vc emerged in the first place such as gains in function within various transitional forms. Rather, the paper mentions quite a bit on loss of function.

“Interestingly, ancestral sequence reconstruction exhibits a stepwise mutation pattern (figure 4) that starts around the time when the tested bat species first evolved from a common ancestor around 58 mya.”

“The ancestor of all bats maintains most of the original Laurasiatheria gene form (with only two mutations) after divergence with non-bat Laurasiatheria species; the ancestor of Hipposideridae, Rhinolophidae, and Megadermatidae (origin around 52 mya) has 3 mutations; the ancestor of Hipposideridae and Rhinolophidae (origin around 39 mya) has 4 mutations; the ancestor of Pteropodidae (origin around 23 mya) has 7 mutations; and the ancestor of the recently emerged Pteropus bats (around 3 mya) have 13 mutations, hence showing a stepwise accumulation of mutations during bat GULO evolution.”

They assume the evolutionary dating, but all this is showing is how many mutations a species had rather than gains that transforms the animal into a bat, what they are showing is the number of mutations with loss in function. Is this really evolution? Wouldn’t it be better for the body to already have the supplement instead of having to obtain it through diet? If any thing, the prediction of evolution would be the other way around. All this study consists of mutations taking away function. Their answer, well the humans and animals can eat, so it wasn’t necessary to manufacture the supplement.  It is interesting to note, the paper mentions, the ancestor of all bats” but there is no common ancestor of bats! They just assume it because where is it? The oldest bat fossil is one hundred percent bat!

In another study from last year, Peter A. Lind, Otto G. Berg, and Dan I. Andersson from Uppsala University conducted an experiment on Salmonella bacterium which was published in the journal of science in November 2010. Their focus here was to come up with new insights on how evolution increases fitness. What surprised evolutionists about this experiment, the mutations caused a loss in fitness rather than an increase in fitness which also confirms the creationist prediction of genetic entropy in nature!

In another paper in Nature, “Experimental evolution reveals resistance to change” where it says…

“Experimental evolution systems allow the genomic study of adaptation, and so far this has been done primarily in asexual systems with small genomes, such as bacteria and yeast.  Here we present whole-genome resequencing data from Drosophila melanogaster populations that have experienced over 600 generations of laboratory selection for accelerated development.”  We conclude that, at least for life history characters such as development time, unconditionally advantageous alleles rarely arise, are associated with small net fitness gains or cannot fix because selection coefficients change over time.”

Science continues to confirm genetic entropy in nature and scientists are now taking a look at on how they they could restore the body being able to make  Vitamin C again. “The gene encoding GULO in guinea pigs and humans has become a pseudogene.” Wouldn’t that be great? No more having to ingest Vitamin C anymore!


11 thoughts on “Creationism’s Predictions vs Evolution’s Predictions

  1. . . . . . . . . . . .Science Journal Reveals Common Sense and Dishonesty

    Michael, you have changed the subject without defending the charge of dishonesty that you leveled in your previous post.

    Your charge is an outlright LIE. Nothing in your post supports any scientific dishonesty. Unless you respond you have abandoned all personal integrity, and no one has any reason to believe what you say.

    We’re still waiting.. . .. . .

  2. Creationism predicts genetic entropy in nature, which means the DNA for humans was much better with the ancients than it is today while evolution predicts gains in function with the purpose of enhancing fitness.

    Wrong on several counts.

    (1) Creationist often forget that a prediction must be made before the result is found, not afterwards. What creationists did was first to define a “genetic entropy” and then to observe so-called examples in the experimental results of others.

    (2) Evolution does not require that all mutations are beneficial. In fact, most of them are predicted to be harmful or neutral. So Michael misrepresents both the “predictions” of creationism and the common knowledge of evolutionary biology.

    (3) Michael continues to assume that evolution has a “purpose” to enhance fitness. His biggest obstacle to understanding evolution is that it has no purpose. Because of limited resources, the more fit organisms survive, the less fit do not. Michael will apparently never understand that simple fact; until he does, his arguments will draw only laughter from biologists.

    (3) Michael does not define what he means by “better” as to human genomes. Humans have a broken citric-acid cycle. Human have a thousand genes for detecting smells, yet only half of them work in most people. He can’t call this a prediction of creationism, because it was actually predicted long ago as a consequence of evolution.

    Michael also conveniently forgets to mention the gene, FOXP2, which did not appear in ancient humans, but forms the basis for speech in modern humans. Apparently Michael thinks speech is a harmful result. There are two other genes which enhance mental functioning in modern humans. One of them originated about 37,000 years ago, and has by now spread to about 95% of the population. Another appeared about 5,000 years ago, and appears at present in about 35% of humans. According to “genomic entropy” this result is impossible. We might also name genes for adaptation to high altitude, which appeared only 2 or 3 thousand years ago in Tibetans. And on and on.

    Oh yes—our ape ancestors did not have color vision. The gene mutations for color vision in humans have actually been traced. And—Michael will be happy to note—have produced a prediction—an actual prediction, which was unexpected, counterintuitive, and which has subsequently been verified in the field. This prediction says that, although orangutans are color-blind, a small number of females will in fact be able to see color. To the great surprise of biologists, this has been verified.


    Here, as usual, creationists find a few anecdotes that seem to support a point, make up after-the-fact “predictions” to bolster them, then falsely accuse evolution of predicting the opposite. Does Michael really think we are that stupid?

    Perhaps Michael can persuade Glenn to quote scripture as evidence that the Bible predicts genetic entropy.

    That’s his best hope.

  3. Genetic entropy illustrates the triumph of computer modeling over reality.

    Michael rarely has anything good to say about computer models, holding that they ultimately contain nothing beyond the desires of the programmers.[1] In the case of a model that seems to hold that evolution is impossible, however, he is willing to make an exception. Nay, he is willing to withhold all critical thought and swallow the model whole.

    For genetic entropy is based solely upon a computer model of mutations—in fact, of only a single kind of mutation. The model subjects the mutations to natural selection—but only to a certain type of natural selection, operating in a particular manner.

    Genetic entropy is the brain fart of John Sanford.[2] His 2005 book, Genetic Entropy & the Mystery of the Genome[3] relies entirely upon a restricted model of evolution, using SNP mutations only, and allowing only a single male and female of each generation to survive and mate. Natural selection is allowed to operate only as the population rebuilds. This, of course, is a “boom and bust” or “bottleneck” scenario. Neo-Darwinian evolution also finds that this model decreases fitness—in fact, it has resulted in the extinction of a large number of species in the past.

    Unfortunately for him, this model sometimes leads to the opposite of Michael’s contention. For the species homo sapiens is in fact a survivor of such a bottleneck, in Africa about 2 Mya. According to Sanford—and Michael—this point should represent a maximum of genetic entropy, and the human race should never have recovered.

    So this is where the computer model runs headlong into reality. Hominids did survive the Sanford maximum of genetic entropy, and have been increasing their adaptation ever since.[4] But humans are not the only example. According to Sanford’s ,model, bacteria—which reproduce asexually—should accumulate boatloads of entropy over relatively short periods of time, and go extinct rapidly. Yet bacteria remain the dominant form of life on earth today. They adapt to a fare-thee-well. Becoming drug resistant. Evolving to munch man-made materials such as nylon and polychlorinated phenols.[5]

    Also, of course, we have the incontrovertible evidence that evolution did occur: the transitional fossils, the genetic relationships, and more. And we have the evidence of adaptation in sand mice and cichlids, for example, and in many invasive species, such as rabbits, sparrows, zebra mussels in my backyard, and kudzu in Michael’s.

    This, then, is the rule for computer models. If the model predicts that which is contrary to reality, then the model is wrong, not the reality. It matters not how elegant the model is, nor how well-crafted, nor how much it may accord with one’s pet theory or with the Bible. If it doesn’t accord with the evidence of the real world, then it is thrown in the bit bucket.

    Except, apparently, those models which support creationism. Oh well. Pick up your copy of Sanford’s book soon.
    It’s down to #302,064 on Amazon’s best-seller list, and will go out of print soon. Sayonara, genetic entropy.


    [1] This is why, for example, weather forecasting models always output the weather which the meteorologists desire. :-)

    [2] No, not the mystery writer, whose books are set close to home here in Minnesota. This John Sanford does have a PhD in plant breeding. Theoretical genetics of the type he undertakes here, however, requires highly advanced biology and mathematics, which is far beyond Sanford’s background.

    [3] Published by ILN, a small vanity press.

    [4] See above comment: the FOXP2 speech gene, color vision high-altitude adaptations, etc., etc.

    [5[ Need we mention yet again Richard Lenski’s long-term experiment showing a completely unexpected adaptation to using citrate as an energy source?

  4. . . . . . . . . . Creationism’s Predictions vs Evolution’s Predictions

    Another deceitful title. Can we ever trust creationists? Apparently not.


    Michael reports the broken human citric-acid cycle and a series of mutations in a bat gene. Then he assumes, with no basis whatever, that evolution predicts the opposite. But evolution predicts nothing of the sort. In fact, evolution predicts that functions which are not (or are no longer) selected for will tend to degrade.[1]

    So there are two things that creationists must learn about predictions—:
    (A) A prediction must be made before the evidence comes in, not afterwards.
    (B) A prediction that is consistent with a theory cannot be used to falsify that theory.

    This “perdition” fails both counts.


    [1] In fact the rise of color vision has been linked to the deselection of Vc production. As our hominid ancestors became able to detect ripe fruit by its color, they no longer needed to produce Vc internally.

  5. I thought I’d save Glenn the trouble of finding biblical predictions of genetic entropy. These are the biblical bases for Sanford’s support: Psalm 102:26,[1] Isaiah 51:6[2], and Hebrews 1:10-12.[3]

    Apparently it is but a small step of theologic to infer that, because clothing wears out, the human genome will also wear out. If so, then it is amazing that no one else had noodled out this proposition in the 2,000 years that these scriptures have been available for scientific analysis.

    One might almost think that the sequence went more like this: Sanford hears about entropy, and connects it with a biblical event, the Fall. Then he generalizes entropy to a general principle of “wearing out,” and searches the Bible for any reference to this subject. Voila–he comes up with not one, but 3 references to clothing wearing out. But Sanford generalizes from clothing to everything wearing out. (Although, as Freud once remarked, sometimes a cigar is only cigar.) Finally since the genome is a part of “everything,” it must also wear out. This may remind one of this infamous theorem of theology: (a) God is love; (b) love is blind; (c) Stevie Wonder is blind; (d) ergo, Stevie Wonder is God.

    But we might ask, what is the biblical event upon which creationists base the notion of entropy? The Fall, Genesis 3:1-19. Yet nothing in or around that event mentions wearing out or degradation of anything, much less the genome. Death and hard work, yes; but wearing out? No. We must travel half way across the Old Testament to the psalms of David for one quote, then to a separate, unrelated corpus, the prophets, for the next, and finally to a letter in the New Testament for the third. Does this smack of random plucking to fit a preconceived idea?

    Finally, what is the context of all these quotations—the only ones Sanford could find that give even nodding reference to his thesis? Their point is not to tell people that everything on earth wears out. They already knew that. The point is to contrast what happens on earth (familiar things) to the unchanging nature of God (something unfamiliar). That is, the only reason for mentioning any form of deterioration is to point out the existence of at least one thing that does not wear out, something that does remain constant.

    That is, Sanford commits what historians call a “context error.” A statement made for one purpose is read as making an assertion about another subject, which is irrelevant to the original purpose. Just because creationists commit this error all the time is not a justification.


    Oh well. If you can’t beat ’em, join ’em. So here is the biblical support for the concept of dark matter, one of Michael’s favorite subjects.

    It is incontrovertible that dark matter was actually created before normal matter: Genesis 1:2 and again in Isaiah 45:6[4]

    Humans cannot see dark matter (although God can): Psalms 139:13.[5]

    Dark matter pervades the universe: Psalms 18:12.[6], and forms cloud-like halos around our galaxy: 1 Kings 8:12.[7]

    The Bible predicts that normal matter will not interact with dark matter: John 1:5.[8]

    There. Michael can have no further compunctions about dark matter. The Bible tells us so.


    [1] Psalm102

    26 They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
    Like clothing you will change them
    and they will be discarded.

    [2] Isaiah 51

    6 Lift up your eyes to the heavens,
    look at the earth beneath;
    the heavens will vanish like smoke,
    the earth will wear out like a garment
    and its inhabitants die like flies.
    But my salvation will last forever,
    my righteousness will never fail.

    [3] Hebrews 1

    10 He also says,
    “In the beginning, Lord, you laid the foundations of the earth,
    and the heavens are the work of your hands.
    11 They will perish, but you remain;
    they will all wear out like a garment.
    12 You will roll them up like a robe;
    like a garment they will be changed.
    But you remain the same,
    and your years will never end.

    [4] Genesis 1

    2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep.
    And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

    Isaiah 45

    7 I form the light and create darkness,

    [5] Psalms 139

    12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day,
    for darkness is as light to you.

    [6] Psalm 18

    11 He made darkness his covering, his canopy around him

    [7] 1 Kings 8

    12 Then Solomon said, “The Lord has said that he would dwell in a dark cloud;

    [8] John 1

    The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

  6. The Nov 5 issue of Science News reports yet another enhancement in the human genome over our ancient ancestors.. This relates to the gene SRGAP2, which has duplicated twice in human history, but remains as a single copy in all other primates. The duplicated gene has become fixed in the entire human population.

    This mutation streamlines brain cells so that they can move farther, allowing humans to build the extra cortex layers involved in intelligence.

    Bye bye,genetic entropy. We won’t miss you.


    The 11 Nov issue of Science proclaims “Living Fossil Younger than Thought” (p. 766-67).

    We should be surprised that Michael has not hopped on this one.

    However, as in many other science-by-headline forays, this one is not what it may seem. If Michael touts it as evidence of a young earth, then he’s toast.

  8. @Olorin,

    Creationists also hop on finds that actually make fossils “older” than once thought also, and then they say that proves their interpretation of the Bible.– Remember when “Creation Revolution” banned me from commenting? I commented on a post of a find in Israel, at Mount Carmel that seemed (at least to some) to indicate that our species was probably older, perhaps 400,000 years old. Since the widely accepted view is that our species is 200,000 years old, the webmasters of the site decided this was a problem for Evolution and therefore a vindication of Creationism.

    But I blew the party with a couple of inconvenient facts:

    1. The evidence was based on teeth, for the most part. I pointed out that the teeth of Homo Heidelbergensis was not much different from that of our species. I also pointed out the same about Homo Neanderthalensis. So the teeth could also belong to either of those species rather than our own.

    2. The original paper did propose they could be of our species, but that was one of other hypothesis it gave. So they were not inherently of our species. The webmasters were citing a press-release rather than the original paper which only hyped one of the hypothesis.

    3. Even if that find was from ancient homo sapiens, that hardly would help Creationism. An upwardly revised date from 200,000 to 400,000 years would make our species older, not younger. And certainly not 6,000 years old.

    Then I was banned.

  9. @Olorin: What blatant misrepresentations. Predictions don’t have to be made before a discovery. What’s important is that a prediction is specific and flows from the theory. If your contention was true then gravity wouldn’t predict that newly discovered planets would orbit stars. Instead every such discovery reinforces the theory as gravity would make such predictions. Stop lying just to “substantiate” your silly belief in evolution.

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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