Mutations

Can beneficial mutations outweigh destructive mutations? Creationist geneticist Dr John Sanford rebuts criticisms and accusations from a theistic evolutionist.

‘Millions of years’ don’t help—in fact they make it worse.

Our 15 Questions for Evolutionists has sparked many responses from evolutionists and skeptics attempting to answer. We’ve compiled many of the answers that we’ve received, along with our refutations.

Our 15 Questions for Evolutionists pamphlet has sparked many responses from evolutionists and skeptics attempting to answer. We’ve compiled many of the answers that we’ve received, along with our refutations.

Darwin used them as evidence for evolution but they are just another loss mutation—evidence of Creation and the Fall

A researcher questions the generalization of the findings of research on ?gain-of-function? mutations in the thyroid hormone system, claiming an example of new, information-gaining mutations.

A review of Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by John C. Sanford

This amazing species of amphibian has been described as ‘primitive’ and ‘an indicator of how evolution works’. But as always, it makes more sense in the light of the Bible.

Scientific American claims that some nematodes have evolved in the lab, but the changes observed do not support microbes-to-man evolution at all.

Does gene duplication provide the engine for evolution?

The critic fails to address the issues, using bluff and bluster. The data are consistent with there being one mother of all humans and within the Bible’s time frame.

Mutations are supposedly the raw material for evolution. Most are harmful or neutral. But even mutations that result in new functions are really informationally downhill, because they cause loss of specificity.

One skeptic believes that he has found an example of ‘new information’ arising by mutations and natural selection. Could he be correct?

New eyes for blind cave fish?

Enzymes are like awesomely designed specialty tools.