The Best Examples of Evolution by Genetic Mutation?

The January 2009 edition of Scientific American ran a series of articles propagating the evolution story. In one such article, various changes in the genetic codes of several animals and plants were highlighted as examples of evolution in action. As noted, there is no question that animals can change genetically over time. The question is can the genetic changes observed be extrapolated over time to accomplish Darwinian evolution?  Let’s examine what must be considered some of the best evidence for evolution at the genetic level.

The first animal highlighted is the whippet dog. Normally a slender animal bred for speed a single point mutation in its genetic code produces an “incredible hulk” of a dog. The small genetic change produced a profound result to be sure, but is this really evolution in action?

The second species highlighted was the pea, which was subjected to extensive heredity experiments by Gregor Mendel in the 19th century. The Scientific American article describes how a genetic mutation, in this case, extra genetic material can be inserted into the plant’s genetic code, thereby profoundly altering the peas’ appearance. In this case, the inserted sequence changed the peas’ normally smooth surface into a wrinkled exterior.

Creationists have noted that for molecules-to-man evolution to take place, brand new genetic information has to evolve. Some may point to the pea plant example as an example of how additional genetic code can become integrated into an individual’s genome and thus counter the creationist argument that no new genetic information is being evolved today. In response to this supposed rebuttal, I would like to point out that the 800 base pair sequence was not being touted as a new gene (which is what Darwinian evolution demands) but a disabler of an already existing gene.Again, the evolutionist must do more than merely demonstrate that genetic changes are taking place in animal and plant species. He must demonstrate that the kind of changes taking place can be extrapolated to produce the change from one kind of plant or animal into a fundamentally different kind. Like the whippet dog, the change in the peas’ appearance was due to the disabling of an already pre-existing gene. Furthermore, this gene is a part of a highly ordered, integrated whole. Where did the gene and the system in which it became integrated come from in the first place?

The pig example above is very similar to the earlier two. That is, a mutation involving extra copies of a particular base pair can inactivate a gene for a signal receptor in pigment cells. The result is an animal with a lighter coloured coat. Once again, this type of observed change involves the deactivation of a pre-existing gene. In no way can such a change be extrapolated over endless ages of time to accommodate Darwinian evolution. Specifically, such a chance is unable to account for the evolution of even one of the 482 genes necessary for the most basic living system.

The picture and text above is intended (obviously) to reveal the amazing similarities between human and chimp in order to solidify the belief in the evolution story. Specifically, the article notes that both species share the exact same enzyme (the starch-digesting enzyme amylase). It further goes on to tell us that in humans, the gene responsible for this enzyme occurs multiple times within the human genome (up to 10).  The genomes of Chimpanzees on the other hand contain just a single gene for the starch digesting enzyme. The assumption is that over time, the human genome has mistakenly copied this gene multiple  times over, thereby allowing us to digest starchy foods much better than our distant relatives. The question is, why must we so believe that the multiple copies of the gene found in humans were the products of evolutionary change over time?

Redundancy is seen in many items of human manufacture (i.e. computers) to safeguard against errors and corruption. The multiple copies of the gene in humans therefore may better be interpreted as the result of intelligent design. Even if we grant that the multiple copies of the gene were added to the human genome over time due to accidental copying events, this is still unable to accomplish Darwinian evolution. Remember, this type of duplication is not creating new genetic information which is what evolution requires. Instead, we see mutations scrambling, deleting, or in this case, duplicating already existing genetic material.  Once again, this type of change can hardly be turned to as the mechanism by which brand new genes evolve.