Professional, peer-reviewed papers about mutations and how they support a recent creation and fall within a biblical framework
Not even plausible “just-so” stories are proposed to explain how one heart system evolved into a different system. Evolution is unable to explain their origin.
Testing the Predictions of the Young-Earth Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Population Growth Curves Confirm the Recent Origin of Human Y Chromosome Differences
The timescale for the human Y chromosome family tree has been a source of sharp disagreement within the creation/evolution debate.
Evidence for a Human Y Chromosome Molecular Clock: Pedigree-Based Mutation Rates Suggest a 4,500-Year History for Human Paternal Inheritance
Pedigree-based mutation rates act as an independent test of the young-earth creation and evolutionary timescales.
The evidence for grossly accelerated radioisotope decay during a past cataclysmic event such as the Genesis Flood has been well established.
My paper was criticizing what Guliuzza has publicly written in which he denies the reality of natural selection: a claim that he has never publicly retracted.
Randy Guliuzza has made some controversial claims regarding the cause and nature of adaptation of organisms to their environment. We examine his claims.
Response to “Still No Replacement of Darwin: A Reply to Nathaniel Jeanson’s Response to My Review of Replacing Darwin—The New Origin of Species”
Frello’s recent critique is helpful progress in our discussion, and it argues for the strength of the science in Replacing Darwin.
Still No Replacement of Darwin—A Reply to Nathanial Jeanson’s Response to my Review of Replacing Darwin—The New Origin of Species
I used to think that when creationists talk about creation and evolution as a clash between worldviews, they were wrong. Jeanson has helped me change my mind.
Ironically, Frello has actually done me a great favor; his review ends up bolstering my original claims.
Jeanson takes on a formidable task: To show that the theory of evolution is wrong, and to replace it with biblical creation. To make it short: Jeanson fails.
Why should there be such “gratuitous beauty”? The plethora of extravagant biological characteristics prominently call out for an explanation.
Frello criticizes papers that he hasn’t carefully read. Not surprisingly, his objections turn out to be unfounded.
Dr. Nathaniel Jeanson claims to have documented a recent origin of humans, using mitochondrial DNA. A reader questions the results.
The lifespans of Old Testament people born after the Flood reveal a numerical pattern known as an exponential decay curve.
Beyond the DNA-Protein Paradox: A “Clutch” of Other Chicken-Egg Paradoxes in Cell and Molecular Biology
The DNA-protein paradox has long been a point of contention in the origin of life debate.
This paper argues that the issue with the origin of life and the origin of biodiversity is not an issue of time, though deep time is problematical.
On the Origin of Human Mitochondrial DNA Differences, New Generation Time Data Both Suggest a Unified Young-Earth Creation Model and Challenge the Evolutionary Out-of-Africa Model
These results underscore the biblical model of human origins and simultaneously undercut the validity of the evolutionary out-of-Africa model.
This study shows that created heterozygosity, together with natural processes that are observable, is sufficient to account for species’ diversity.
Using Taxonomically Restricted Essential Genes to Determine Whether Two Organisms Can Belong to the Same Family Tree
How are all life forms connected? Are they linked by one giant family tree, a web, or a forest of family trees?
The Genesis and Emergence of Community-Associated Methicillin-Resistant Staphylococcus aureus (CA-MRSA): An Example of Evolution in Action?
We have seen a changing profile from HA-MRSA to CA-MRSA. This is potentially dangerous because the new strains are more virulent and aggressive.
Documented Anomaly in Recent Versions of the BLASTN Algorithm and a Complete Reanalysis of Chimpanzee and Human Genome-Wide DNA Similarity Using Nucmer and LASTZ
Past evolutionary research in comparative DNA analysis between chimps and humans has employed a great deal of preferential and selective data analysis.
A Young-Earth Creation Human Mitochondrial DNA “Clock”: Whole Mitochondrial Genome Mutation Rate Confirms D-Loop Results
New data agree with the expectations from D-loop results, further confirming the origin of humans within 6000 years and rejecting evolutionary timescales.
HIV-1 is an important example which shows genetic entropy operating throughout the biological realm, even while meaningful genetic adaptations are occurring.
Mutational degeneration of the nef gene manifests as increased pathogenicity of HIV-1.
The mechanism of speciation remains one of the most contested scientific questions among both evolutionists and creationists.
The molecular interaction of HIV-1 is merely cyclic fine-tuning of an existing function and illustrates the broken relationship between the virus and the host.
Natural selection is controversial among many scientists, both in evolutionary and creationary circles.
As we learn more about parasites, which don’t seem to be “good” design, we will understand better how the parasitic lifestyle resulted from the Fall.
A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-driven Approach: Part 3
This third installment is a continuation of my response to a recent critical paper (Jeanson 2013).
In this three-part ~35,000-word response, Guliuzza (2014a, b, c) fails to clearly define his terms and/or use them consistently.
A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-Driven Approach: Part 1
This paper responds to a 2013 Jeanson paper critical of a series of Acts & Facts articles published by the Institute for Creation Research (ICR).
A Response to “Does Natural Selection Exist?”: Creatures’ Adaptation Explained by the Design-based, Organism-driven Approach: Part 2
This second installment is a continuation of my response to a recent critical paper (Jeanson 2013) on a series of Acts & Facts articles.
Many recent creationists believe that the second law of thermodynamics came into being as a result of the Fall or the curse. I argue that this is not supported by Scripture nor science.
The HBBP1 gene appears to be a highly functional and cleverly integrated feature of the human genome that is intolerant of mutation.
How did the modern diversity of life arise from the created kinds of Genesis 1 and from the kinds taken on board the Ark? Did natural selection play a role?
A common evolutionary claim is that the DNA of chimpanzees and humans are nearly identical. Modern DNA research is showing much higher levels of discontinuity.
Any understanding of Scripture that excludes or indicts the divine Himself is necessarily flawed and false.
I reviewed both the textbooks used for life science classes at the college where I teach and those that I used in my past university course work.
Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89%
To provide a global set of analyses, large-scale comparative DNA sequence alignments between the chimpanzee and human genomes were performed with the BLASTN algorithm.
This research effort provides information necessary for the best possible reconstruction of the animal kinds preserved on the Ark for the Ark Encounter.
Assuming that “natural kind” is a merely biological rather than metaphysical would be a mistake, resulting in Christians having difficulty evaluating and correcting rival views to created kinds.
Darwinists try to disprove the argument from design by providing examples of what they claim are poor design.
The Bible’s description of created kinds implies an information model which uses variables. The findings in this paper show that a model which uses variables forms a basis for understanding biology.
Young-earth creationists rightly consider that Neanderthals were human, but are divided on various issues.
A review of the history of paleoanthropology leads to the conclusion that the discipline is far less objective than that for physics, chemistry, or even biology.
Mutations are normally classified according to their proximal effect on an organism’s fitness, whether beneficial, deleterious, or neutral.
Mutations on Answers Research Journal
Evolutionary ideas assert that mutations are one of the major driving forces for molecules-to-man evolution. A mutation is any change in the sequence of DNA bases in the genome of an organism. Over billions of years, evolutionists propose that random mutations provided the raw genetic variation needed to add novel genetic information to result in new structures and functions that allow one kind of organism to evolve into a different kind of organism.
The aim of these research papers in Answers Research Journal (ARJ) is to show what mutations can achieve in the present through examples (e.g., antibiotic-resistant bacteria) and how mutations lead to degradation of organisms in support of a recent creation and subsequent fall within a biblical framework. These professional, peer-reviewed papers address issues related to mutations and discuss how that relates to other disciplines. Our journal considers mutation in light of creation, evolution, the Fall, DNA clocks, human and chimp DNA comparisons, genetics, baraminology, and more.
Neo-Darwinists propose that beneficial mutations made changes to organisms that were then either selected for or against in a particular environment (natural selection). Then over billions of years, this led to the great diversity of life, both past and present. However, observable evidence clearly shows that mutations cannot do what evolution requires. Mutations result in either no change in the organism or a detrimental change, not the gain of information and the gain of novel structures and functions required for evolution. Mutations can result in variation and speciation within a biblical kind but not what is necessary for molecules-to-man evolution.