Deterioration of the Genome

     The entire treatise of neo-Darwinian theory is built on the premise that mutations randomly occur, and that natural selection preserves the favorable ones and eliminates the unfavorable ones over time. In order for this to be a viable hypothesis, natural selection would need to be capable of selectively filtering out harmful mutations as rapidly as they accumulate. Otherwise, breeding would invariably result in deterioration of a species. This is because the majority of mutations are harmful.

During the past 20-30 years, genetic research has revealed that humans inherit between 100 and 300 mutations per generation, and at least 99.95% of these mutations are deleterious.* It is therefore impossible for natural selection to filter out any significant number of harmful mutations as imagined by evolutionists. The result is a progressive decline in the quality of the human genome over time. Another problem for natural selection is that the “harmful” effects of these mutations are so subtle in each generation as to be invisible to natural selection. Just as the mutations resulting in macroevolution are proposed to be imperceptible from one generation to the next, so are the mutations resulting in genetic deterioration “invisible” to natural selection.

     A common misconception propagated by evolutionary theorists is that most mutations are neutral. Mutations are designated "neutral" only because a deleterious effect cannot be measured. As with any error in replication of digital computer code, a random change in genetic code is nearly always a corruption, despite the fact that the effect cannot be quantified in one generation.

     It is imagined by proponents of evolution that countless neutral mutations accumulate and create purposeful genetic material over many generations. Such a paradigm is analogous to the suggestion that random mistakes in the duplication of music CD, although "neutral" (undetectable), can gradually accumulate to improve the quality of the music. Although most mutations are claimed to be neutral, natural selection is credited with the capacity to preserve them in the population. In other words, natural selection can detect what man cannot detect.

Given the limited reproduction rates of higher organisms such as humans, it is obviously impossible for natural selection to extinguish deleterious mutations, even if natural selection could act upon such minuscule changes. Humans on average only produce three offspring per set of parents, and such occurs only about once every 20 years. Therefore, the proposal that natural selection could act in a positive way in humans defies known laws of genetics. Furthermore, the evolution of an ape to a human would have necessitated millions of improvements in DNA.

     Every time that human DNA is copied, the quality of the replica (offspring) is slightly inferior to the original. This is because 100-300 errors (mutations) are inevitable. An analogy can be drawn in the replication of digital data. If three copies of a music CD are produced, all of the replicas will be slightly inferior to the original. Because of computer technology, the copying mistakes are very rare and thus imperceptible in one generation. The errors in replication appear neutral because they are not measurable by human standards. However, if a copy of the copy is made, and this process is repeated thousands of times, the CD's produced after many generations will be noticeably inferior. The proposal that improvements could be made to the CD by preservation of favorable "mistakes" in replication is unthinkable.

     Some argue that human beings are improving through evolution, manifested by increased longevity and taller stature. These observations are merely reflections of advances in medical knowledge and nutrition. Increased height is a result of the selection of pre-existing genes. Man’s immune system is not improving. Man is no more intelligent now than he was at any point in recorded history. Man’s genome is deteriorating, a fact recognized by nearly all population geneticists.

     Besides it being impossible for natural selection to rid the human genome of 100-300 harmful mutations per generation, it would be impossible to improve the genome by artificial means. Even if a totalitarian society implemented policies of eugenics wherein every candidate for reproduction were subjected to DNA testing, and all potential parents were matched for ideal DNA sequences, it would be impossible to selectively breed out 100-300 mutations per generation because of the limited reproductive rates in humans.

     Because of this progressive downhill course of genetic makeup, all animal species are losing genetic information over time. This is the precise opposite of what is required for evolution.

H. J. Muller (1890-1967), a renowned geneticist and Nobel prize winner, noted that a consensus existed among geneticists that if even one harmful mutation were produced and maintained in the species per generation, genetic deterioration would be inevitable.

Relative to the progressive deterioration of human DNA, Dr. J.C. Sanford, a geneticist from Cornell University, wrote:

The extinction of the human genome appears to be just as certain and deterministic as the extinction of stars, the death of organisms, and the heat death of the universe.

     The fact that the genomes of all species are deteriorating over time may provide insights as to why so many imperfections of nature exist. While evolutionists argue that the propensity for humans to develop diseases and other perceived imperfections provides evidence against intelligent design, the progressive degeneration of man's DNA over time is resulting in precisely the opposite of what evolution is credited with producing.

     These are facts that have been only recently understood and are little known by the majority of evolutionary biologists. An understanding of this aspect of genetics results in the conclusion that the selective accumulation of beneficial traits and extinction of unfavorable mutations over time is impossible based on current knowledge of genetics. Evolution proposes that the genomes of species are progressively improving over time. The opposite is occurring.

     The proven tendency of human DNA to deteriorate over time is, in my view, one of the most serious challenges to Darwinism. Unproven mechanisms of inheritance such as group selection can be imagined. It can be argued that perhaps natural selection can sort out all favorable traits over time through yet poorly understood mechanisms. However, the core principle of evolution, that of progressive improvement of DNA, is contradicted by studies of the human genome.

     It is often argued that evolution cannot be tested because it cannot be observed.  In other words, positive incremental changes cannot be documented in nature because the process is too slow.  Therefore, evolution should be accepted on inference and extrapolation.  What can be observed is genetic deterioration, the opposite of evolution. That conclusion is not drawn on extrapolation, but can be documented in just a few sequential generations.