Too Many Assumptions Taint Gene Study

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen 

Here is another change from our usual fare. A reader of The Question Evolution Project posted a link to an article on about genetics and asked me to comment, so I thought this might be a good opportunity to point out some of the assumptions and neglected considerations in the research. I will only be responding to the article.

A little exercise in reading evolutionary material and seeing faulty reasoning. In this case, genetic researchers did not admit that their work supported creation and the Genesis Flood.
Credit: Image from RGBStock / Tomislav Alajbeg modified through PhotoFunia
Actually, I had indirectly posted a creationist's response to this some time ago, but I wanted to give additional comments. The article under discussion is "Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution", from May 2018, which inadvertently supported recent creation and the Genesis Flood. But if they dare mentioned that the evidence supports those things, they risk having their careers thrown into the Gorge of Eternal Peril.

As is often the case, the elements of the research seem straightforward. A system of DNA barcodes, collected and stored in the GenBank database, was accessed and data were compared. Unfortunately, they used the fallacy of begging the question: assuming evolution to prove evolution. They wanted to understand evolution more truly and deeply, but the results threaten long-held Darwinian dogmas. Do organisms become more genetically diverse over long periods of time? Not hardly! 

According to the researchers, most species on Earth "came into being" 200,000 years ago or less. Ad hoc rescuing devices were conjured up to escape the possibility of recent creation instead of universal common descent. Was there an extinction event that caused a population bottleneck? Well, yes, it's called the Genesis Flood.

Mitochondrial DNA was examined (but obviously not the part where creation back to Adam and Eve is affirmed). So-called neutral mutations were considered and found to be irrelevant, but they are actually worse than irrelevant. So, mass extinction and repopulation? It doesn't fit. The article concludes with, "The absence of 'in-between' species is something that also perplexed Darwin, [Thaler] said.

In a previous (and easier) exercise, we looked at how people can question the reports out of the secular science industry. When people take the time and become familiar with biblical creation science materials, we can ask more questions and even raise some objections. There are many resources, and sites like this point you to many of them. You can tell because I used links to previous articles that in turn linked to those resources.

Remember as Question Evolution Day approaches again that secularists tell you what to think, which is probably why so many secular scientists are more concerned with advocating evolution. However, biblical creationists want to teach you how to think: ask questions, have healthy skepticism, spot logical fallacies, use resources, and so on. You savvy that, pilgrim? Good!