Evolution Genetics Intelligent Design

Mutations and macroevolution: The Central Dogma of biology turns out to be… unsupported?

Spread the love

Jonathan Wells has the story about problems no one is even trying to understand in the history of life as an alternative to just shutting up people who doubt some official stance:

Some modern biologists think that the sequence of amino acids specifies the final form of a protein, and that proteins specify the final form of an organism. This line of reasoning is sometimes called the central dogma of molecular biology, and it can be crudely summarized as “DNA makes RNA makes protein makes us.” In 1970, molecular biologist François Jacob wrote that an organism is the realization of a “genetic program” written in its DNA.2 Under this view, changes (mutations) in DNA sequences would change the genetic program and thus modify the organism in any number of ways. Molecular biologist Jacques Monod (who shared a 1965 Nobel Prize with Jacob) wrote that with this realization, “and the understanding of the random physical basis of mutation that molecular biology has also provided, the mechanism of Darwinism is at last securely founded. And man has to understand that he is a mere accident.”

Jonathan Wells on mutation, “Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Mutation” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 16, 2022)

Well, that last point is, of course, the money shot, isn’t it? But what if mutations don’t really produce macroevolution, as implied above?

Since the 1970s, molecular biologists have performed comprehensive screens for mutations affecting embryo development in fruit flies, roundworms, zebrafish, and mice. Hundreds of mutations have been identified, but none of them change development in the fundamental ways needed for macroevolution. All the available evidence leads to the conclusion that no matter how much we mutate a fruit fly embryo, only three outcomes are possible: a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even a house fly, much less a roundworm, a zebrafish, or a mouse, can be produced via mutations.

Jonathan Wells on mutation, “Top Scientific Problems with Evolution: Mutation” at Evolution News and Science Today (February 16, 2022)

Meanwhile, in the United States, and doubtless in many other places, righteous science activists could probably get a court order against anyone teaching in a publicly funded school that evidence for macroevolution is missing. The fact that it is missing is an Unfact, so to speak.


Here’s Jonathan Wells’s whole series on scientific problems with evolution theory.

You may also wish to read: Evolution problems: “Species” is such a mess of a concept And evolutionary biologists keep looking for examples in nature, with meagre results. One way of attempting to demonstrate speciation is to seize on inconsequential genetic changes and inflate their importance.

and

Jonathan Wells on the fossil record as a problem, not a solution, for evolution theories. Where the needed transitional fossils are missing that matters most is researchers’ lack of willingness to be honest about what their absence means.

One Reply to “Mutations and macroevolution: The Central Dogma of biology turns out to be… unsupported?

  1. 1
    jerry says:

    That’s because the central dogma of molecular biology is genetics

    Darwin’s ideas are great science. They just have nothing to do with body plans or Evolution.

Leave a Reply