Evolutionary Assumption: Mutation Clock

How do evolutionists date important events? They use what is known as the “Mutation Clock” in humans. A recent study conducted for three years has shown that this clock is half off by their own assumptions!

The study was published in science magazine

“Now it seems that the molecular clock ticks more slowly than anyone had thought, and many dates may need to be adjusted. Over the past 3 years, researchers have used new methods to sequence whole human genomes, allowing them to measure directly, for the first time, the average rate at which new mutations arise in a newborn baby. Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000.

“Together, these papers make a convincing case that the human sequence mutation rate is substantially less than the one previously used,” says Harvard University population geneticist David Reich, co-author of one recent study. “As a result, genetic estimates of dates for ancient events are going to be older than previously reported.”

This could throw off many events because “timing” is so important in the evolutionary story. Now paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer is calling these events, “very murky” while John Hawks sounded the alarm, “We can’t figure out how things happened if we don’t know when they happened.” 

Other problems include:

1) The first appearance of a fossil may not represent the first appearance of the species!

2)  “there are no fossils of our closest living relatives: chimps and gorillas”

3) Genes may have diverge long before species do.

4) Mutation rates can differ between apes due to other factors, like years between generations.

While evolutionists admit that mutations are a key component for explaining human evolution for better or worse “because most new mutations are deleterious.”  The only thing empirical in the study is mutations rates of humans in a certain part of the world, and fossil bones with no dates on them.

In desperation they cling to mutations as sources of novelty that can transform one species into the next with amazing specialized complexity when they know full well that most of them are not beneficial and admitting that 36 mutations per generation is deadly, while  ignoring the millions of neutral or nearly neutral mutations that cause code decay over time which doesn’t help evolution’s story.  A good study on this is, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford which is a great read! He explains genetic entropy which is an observational fact, very well!

With most mutations non-beneficial and with 36 deadly mutations per generation, the human race could not have survived tens of thousands of years at that rate of change! Here is an analogy, if you type mistakes (typos) in a research paper for example, over the course of time especially a long period of time, that information begins to break down and becomes unreadable and useless!

Humans haven’t been around tens of thousands of years!  That’s why civilization, agriculture and the technology appeared so abruptly, just like history shows, less than 10,000 years ago which confirms creationism!

Advertisements

4 thoughts on “Evolutionary Assumption: Mutation Clock

  1. How do evolutionists date important events? They use what is known as the “Mutation Clock” in humans. A recent study conducted for three years has shown that this clock is half off by their own assumptions!

    Poor Michael! The best he can do is to improve his opponents’ case!

    Creationism needs to reduce the age of events by a factor of thousands to millions of times from those found by science. So suppose we take the “old” value of the split between Neandertals and modern humans: 300,000 years is in the middle of the range

    > Michael needs to reduce this by a factor of roughly 1,000, down to about 3,000 years.

    > But the new results would INCREASE this time by a factor of 2, to about 500,000 years.

    Does anyone see a problem for creationism here? Apparently Michael does not.

  2. A good study on this is, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford which is a great read! He explains genetic entropy which is an observational fact, very well!

    One might echo Dorothy Parker’s famous comment from one of her book reviews: “This is not a book to be lightly cast aside. Instead, it should be thrown with great force.”

    A number of geneticists have wondered what happened to Sanford’s mind in his old age. It’s not just that he has forgotten the knowledge of his field, but that he at times deliberately lies about it.

    Genetic entropy is not an “observed fact.” In fact, his book contains no hard data at all for this concept. As noted in an extensive review of his book by Scott Buchanan in 2010—

    For all Sanford’s hand-wringing over the inescapable declines in genomes everywhere, his lack of concrete examples shows that the scientific facts are not on his side. Microbes have existed for untold millions of generations, and even small mammals like mice and rabbits which reproduce one or more times a year have existed with humans for thousands of generations in historic times, and many more thousands of generations in prehistoric times. If genomes of these rodents were declining by say 0.1% per year, then in 3000 years since 1000 BC, they should be down to 5% of their original fitness (0.999 raised to 3000 power = 0.05) So where is the evidence of super-rabbits in 1000 BC or even 1000 AD ?

    Buchanan also notes several instances where Sanford outright misrepresented what the literature shows.

    We keep telling you, Michael, Never rely on creationist sources. They’ll lie to you, and, in your gullibility, you won’t know the difference. Then people start laughing.

    .

  3. The above quotation from Scott Buchanan was taken from one of a series of letters in 2010 that he wrote to a creationist friend, and then posted to his blog—

    PREFACE (for blog) to Letter “STAN 1”: This was my first letter regarding creation and evolution. I had not planned to get so deeply into this area, but was prodded into it by Stan’s efforts to convert me to young earth creationism.

    > STAN-1 includes a number of topics: beneficial mutations, fossils, Flood geology, and Bible4 interpretation.
    > STAN-2 covers speciation, fossils, dating, thermodynamics, and cytochrome-c patterns.
    > STAN-3 addresses macroevolution, the pace of evolution, and genome complexity.
    > STAN-3 reviews Michael Behe’s Edge of Evolution and John Sanford’s Genetic Entropy.

    Buchanan is a PhD chemical engineer, who started out undergrad in seminary. From the STAN-1> first letter, (here), you may navigate to the later ones by clicking the “STAN-n” tabs located just under the title bar.

    Each letter is somewhat lengthy, but worth the time to read.

  4. Humans haven’t been around tens of thousands of years! That’s why civilization, agriculture and the [sic] technology appeared so abruptly, just like history shows, less than 10,000 years ago [sic] which confirms creationism!

    According to Michael’s own Bible, the first humans—Adam and Eve—practiced agriculture and domesticated animals[1] Their children also worked metal.

    And yet, history shows many modern humans who were hunter gatherers, even though agricultural grains were available to them, who hunted large animals without any effort toward domesticating them,[2] and used stone tools and weapons instead of iron.[3] What about these people? Did they forget Adam’s knowledge in a mass amnesia? Did they choose not to use this knowledge that would have improved their lives so greatly?

    Or, did they live long before the Bible’s “first humans”? Hundred’s of thousands of years before, in fact.

    Agriculture and iron technology[4] did appear relatively rapidly, considering the mufti-million year history of modern humans. But, if the Bible were historically correct, ALL humans would have known of this technology.

    ============

    [1] After they were tossed out of Eden, of course.

    [2] American Indians, for example.

    [3] All of Africa, for example. Note that the Bible doesn’t record anyhumans who used stone tools. Strange.

    [4] Michael is ignorant of what this technology entails. Yoo hoo, Michael: Iron was known for thousands of years before it was used in weapons or tools, although it was widely used for ornaments. Because iron is hard and brittle. What was the core invention that allowed it to be employed in useful artifacts? Or are you not as smart as Cain or Abel?

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