Refuting Creationist Arguments - Mutations

In this video I will address some of the misconceptions, lies, and other false claims made by creationists regarding mutations.
Due to time constraints I will only be addressing the most commonly used creationist arguments regarding mutations.

Throughout this video I will use superscripted numbers to indicate sources.
At the end of the video I will list my references; the superscripted numbers will correspond to particular sources


Claim 1: Mutations are Rare

Actually mutations are fairly common.
Consider the following facts:
-In humans, the average mutation rate per genome per replication is 0.0041.
-We must also take into consideration that the mutation rate may actually be higher than this, because mutations with very small effects may be hard to detect.

-This number may seem small to some people, but consider the following:
-- in humans, the number of cell divisions prior to sperm formation in a male of age 30 is about 4002.

-- This works out to about 1.6 mutations per sperm cell.

-Including neutral mutations, each human zygote has approximately 64 new mutations1.

-Also, mutation rates are generally higher, and life cycles shorter, in lower organisms. This is why bacteria, and other lower organisms, evolve faster than humans do.

-Even if many of these mutations occur in 'junk' DNA (by some estimates 'junk' DNA accounts for 90% of human DNA2), mutations are not nearly as rare as many creationists would like people to believe.


Claim 2: Most Mutations are Harmful

Most mutations are actually neutral.
One study estimated around 3 deleterious mutations out of 175 per generation in humans3.
Many non-neutral mutations are harmful, but a small fraction are beneficial.

Harmful mutations are removed from the gene pool via natural selection; beneficial mutations stay in the gene pool via natural selection.


Claim 3: Mutations are purely random, random processes never build anything.

This claim completely ignores the fact that natural selection is a non-random process.
Mutations may be random, but natural selection is not.

To put it simply: if a mutation helps the organism survive in its environment, then it will go on to reproduce and pass on its genetic material; if a mutation does not help the organism survive (if the mutation is harmful), then the organism dies out and does not pass that mutation on (the harmful mutation is removed from the gene pool).


Claim 4: Mutations do not add information, traits, etc.

Most creationists make this claim, but refuse to define what they mean by information.
Since creationists refuse to define what they mean by 'information', I will tackle the possibilities that could apply to genetics and evolution.

If they are talking about each nucleotide (or set of nucleotides) as being 'information', then frameshift mutations CAN add information4.

If they are referring to new traits being added, then mutations DO add information.
Here are a few examples:

-The development of nylonase in Flavobacterium Sp. K1725.

-Adaptation to high and low temperatures by E. Coli6.

-Some mutations in humans provide resistance to HIV7.

- Eero Mäntyranta, among other members of his family, has naturally aberrant high blood hemoglobin due to a mutation in the erythropoietin receptor (EPOR) gene8.

This list could on for quite a while, but you get the point...
By any definition of information that can be applied to evolution, mutations DO add information.

As you can clearly see, creationist claims regarding mutations are false.
Creationists simply choose to ignore the scientific evidence in favor of their dogmatic beliefs.

References
1) JW Drake et al, "Rates of Spontaneous Mutation",Genetics 148:1667-1686, April 1998 http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/148/4/1667
2) Harter, R., "Are Mutations Harmful?". Retrieved August 1, 2007, from http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html#append_1
3) Nachman, M. W. and S. L. Crowell. 2000. Estimate of the mutation rate per nucleotide in humans. Genetics 156(1): 297-304.
4) Johnson, G. B. (2006). The Living World, Fourth Edition. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.
5) Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe. 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
6) Bennett, A.F., Lenski, R.E., & Mittler, J.E. (1992). Evolutionary adaptation to temperature I. Fitness responses of Escherichia coli to changes in its thermal environment. Evolution, 46:16-30.
7) Sullivan, Amy D., Janis Wigginton and Denise Kirschner. 2001. The coreceptor mutation CCR5-delta-32 influences the dynamics of HIV epidemics and is selected for by HIV. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 98: 10214-10219.
8) de la Chapelle A, Traskelin AL, Juvonen E. (1993). "Truncated erythropoietin receptor causes dominantly inherited benign human erythrocytosis." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 90(10):4495-9.

Category:

Howto & Style

Tags:

• refute
• refuting
• evolution
• creation
• creationism
• religion
• god
• deity
• delusion
• reason
• mutation
• intelligent
• design
• ID

[mistermuffin420]

terrible song, nice arguement

[LaingGod]

A beneficial mutation would be bacteria evolving antibiotic resistance. it's not beneficial for us but beneficial for the bacteria.

[Jefferyxu45]

@uppercutter21 How about Fossil Records, Genetic matches, Embryology, and Biochemistry? Chimpanzee DNA is around a 98% match with ours and thus a lot of our proteins are commonly shared, it's a pretty big coincidence to say that it is not related to us at all. Of course since your creationist in a (thankfully) free country, you can hold onto your illogical and in my opinion idiotic belefs.

[DarkNinjaCrede]

This is a pointless agruement ive seen both sides of the spectrum (creationist and evolution) both have completely legit proofs for there beliefs (no offense but all evidence that craetionists do have is undenyable.

[ladefreakndah]

@zenithar6666 Please get a web browser with spell check.

[uppercutter21]

@steviej321 There is no evidence at all that shows that our brains r a mutation. When evolutionists make the claim that all life here on Earth is just a bunch of mutations I think it sounds completely ridiculous. Believing this also takes faith since theres no evidence to support such a claim, none. Micro evolution is a proven fact but macro evolution is a false religion. It takes faith to believe that its true b/c there isn't any solid evidence. Theres also big problems w/ evolution

[steviej321]

@uppercutter21 "Can u cite a beneficial mutation 4 an organism that isn't microscopic? Preferably a human"

Easy. Humans developing large, powerful brains.

[uppercutter21]

@LaingGod Can u cite a beneficial mutation 4 an organism that isn't microscopic? Preferably a human. Please let me know if this beneficial mutation occurs without the person losing a positive trait or gaining a negative trait. Any case where a mutation helped a person & didn't cost them anything valuable in the process. It seems when people cite beneficial mutations it's only microscopic organisms that were in a lab environment & had outside intelligent influence assisting them.

[shiney94]

The information is useful, but the opinion sucks. U say all creationists- and tht is not true.

But thnx for the info. It actually strengthens my belief in God. Mutations that help against HIV, thank u God :)

[zenithar6666]

what you mean is YOU belive there is no god, i personally dont belvie in any of the pre packed deities of an scripturter, but too assume, as you have, that there is no greater creative intellignvce in the univese, is simply silly and infcat there is copiuos evidence of such intelligences

[cwross1976]

and since there is no God and we just make up quaint ideas like 'good' or 'evil' or 'i love you mom' we can just do what the fuck ever we want. you know like it says in the bible, about people who deny God. it's so brutally obvious... it's really sad when you think that most people will end up burning because they like to get off. we make it so easy for them.

[cwross1976]

from my perspective it boils down to which philosophy reinforces human nature. atheism or christianity (we won't bother with those other religions i mean who cares right? you're really only after them damn jesus freaks anyway). atheism says to fuck like bandits, better to burn out than fade away. christianity the total polar opposite... you know the rest, so fuck, kill, steal, eat til your hearts content, you'll be dead soon so who cares, right?