DNA Archives

August 19, 2026August 17, 2026

Random DNA Mutations

In the 1960s, Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura introduced the neutral theory of molecular evolution. It advanced the idea that most random DNA mutations are not driven by survival of the fittest but by pure chance. Now a team of scientists at the University of Michigan has published a new study saying that beneficial mutations arise more frequently than Kimura had believed. However, they say that a changing environment often prevents those mutations from spreading through an entire population. In other words, environments change more quickly than mutations can spread through populations.

Random DNA mutations arise by chance, and natural selection removes the unhelpful ones. The new study determined that only 1% of amino acid mutations are beneficial. That doesn’t sound like a very big percentage, but it is larger than what Kimura suggested. Even then, those mutations don’t spread to the entire population of a species.

To conduct this study, researchers at the University of Michigan used yeast cells, which live for only 3 hours. That brief generational time allowed them to study 1320 yeast populations over 800 generations using 100 different growth media to create different environments. Environmental changes effectively erased a mutation’s advantage before it could spread through an entire population. In addition, mutations that are beneficial in one environment are usually harmful in another.

In all research, random DNA mutations have not been shown to create new species or higher orders, but they do change and refine existing species. Even with mutations in yeast populations, whether they were beneficial or otherwise, the result was still yeast. The same could be said in other cases, such as dogs or cattle, where we can see mutations resulting in new variations among those animals, but they still remain dogs or cattle.

As we have said before, microevolution does not prove macroevolution. Even if the uncommon mutations are beneficial, they are often lost because they don’t spread through the entire population. Evolution cannot explain the diversity of life on planet Earth.

Reference: msn.com

August 12, 2026August 10, 2026

QT45 and Origin of Life Research

Researchers at the Laboratory of Molecular Biology in Cambridge, England, have synthesized an RNA polymerase, an enzyme that assembles RNA molecules. RNA is ribonucleic acid, an organic molecule necessary for replicating DNA, which is found in every living cell. QT45 is hailed as a step toward understanding the origin of life, but is it really?

Researchers called this RNA polymerase QT45 because it is “Quite Tiny” and has only 45 organic molecules called nucleotides. Most RNA polymerases have over 150 nucleotides. The researchers proudly point out that this RNA polymerase can replicate itself with “high accuracy.” UK Research and Innovation posted an article titled “Scientists’ chemical breakthrough sheds light on origin of life.” But that may be an exaggeration.

If the origin of life happened by chance without intelligent intervention, then this discovery proves nothing. Creating QT45 required several steps, at least three of which used advanced laboratory techniques. First, the researchers had to generate trillions of random RNA molecules. Then they had to apply eleven rounds of mutation and selection to obtain a few RNAs that could link a growing chain. Then they had to apply seven rounds of selection to improve performance. The bottom line is that this did not happen naturally. Furthermore, it could not have happened naturally.

As reported in Science and Culture in February of 2026, “Such highly specific conditions and highly orchestrated steps do not resemble any environmental conditions that could have ever existed.” Even if such conditions could have happened and QT45 formed naturally, it is still far from being a living cell. Life requires much more than the ability to replicate. It is far from a “chemical breakthrough” that “sheds light on the origins of life.” The origin of life remains a scientific mystery for those who reject the Bible. For more on this issue, use the link below.

Reference: scienceandculture.com

July 1, 2026June 27, 2026

The Fine-Tuning of the Genetic Code

Yesterday, we examined the fact that the 20 amino acids commonly used in biological proteins are not a random set but are precisely fine-tuned for optimal protein synthesis. But that is only the beginning of the fine-tuning of the genetic code. A series of articles by biologist Dr. Jonathan McLatchie reports on further fine-tuning.

Cell reproduction requires the replication of the DNA contained within those cells. RNA is the molecule that facilitates DNA replication. RNA has 64 different codons–three-letter “words” that are the fundamental units of the genetic code. Of those, 61 specify amino acids that build proteins, and the other three are stop codons that mark the termination point in creating those proteins. As we mentioned before, there are 20 amino acids used for life. Since there are 64 codons, “a marvel of molecular logic” selects the proper amino acids. That coding system shows evidence of a conscious, deliberate, intelligent agent guiding the creation of the genetic code.

The genetic code in living cells seems to be beautifully fine-tuned to protect cells from mutations during replication. As reported by Dr. McLatchie, the statistical rarity of the conventional genetic code is 1 in 2 billion. That does not seem to be a random chance occurrence. But there are additional levels of fine-tuning, including the fact that the genetic code has been written to reduce the impact of frameshift mutations. It’s beyond the scope of this article to discuss what frameshift mutations are, but the point is that the 64-to-20 mapping system is designed to minimize the number of amino acids translated from a frameshifted transcript before a stop codon halts the process.

But that does not fully cover the fine-tuning of the genetic code. It has multiple layers of highly optimized, independent constraints. The genetic code has been established and used by all forms of life on this planet, with each of the 20 amino acids tied to specific codons. Making significant modifications to the code would create major problems in every cell because the relationships between codons and amino acids are essential for every polypeptide (protein) the cell makes.

Dr. McLatchie’s report contains this statement: “Why is the genetic code the way it is, and how did it come to be? That was asked over 50 years ago, at the dawn of molecular biology, (and) might remain pertinent even in another 50 years.” The point I make is that until scientists consider the possibility of an intelligent Agent who designed the genetic code, that question will never be answered. Why not at least consider the possibility that all these signs of the fine-tuning of the genetic code are not merely accidental but the product of design? The reason modern science refuses to do so is that design requires an intelligent Designer.

Reference: scienceandculture.com HERE, HERE, HERE, and HERE

May 29, 2026May 27, 2026

Intelligent or Unintelligent?

Causes can be of two types: intelligent or unintelligent. As we look for what caused the universe to come into existence or what caused life to appear on this planet, we should ask whether it was an intelligent cause or an unintelligent one, meaning chance. When you see the Grand Canyon, you can conclude that it was the result of natural forces and therefore not a direct intelligent cause. When you see Mount Rushmore, the mountain itself can be attributed to natural causes, but the faces of four presidents carved into that mountain testify to an intelligent cause.

Darwinists agree that the living things we see around us appear to be designed. But those who reject intelligent causation for living things have to keep reminding themselves that what they’re seeing was not designed by an Intelligence, but rather merely happened by chance. Is that attitude intelligent or unintelligent?

The complexity of DNA is certainly a challenge to those who believe that life happened by chance. However, they also have to contend with the fact that DNA relies on proteins for its structure, while proteins require DNA to provide the instructions for how they are to be constructed and folded. Since each requires the other, which comes first: proteins or DNA?

Spontaneous generation of life from non-life was advocated by Aristotle and accepted by science for 2,000 years until Louis Pasteur disproved it. However, those who believe that life came into being without guiding intelligence from purely natural chemicals must accept the concept of spontaneous generation, even though it is not supported by any empirical observation. Francis Crick, an atheist and co-discoverer of the DNA molecule’s structure, said, “Every time I write a paper on the origin of life, I swear I will never write another one, because there is too much speculation running after too few facts.”

Other scientists, such as Fred Hoyle, recognizing the problem of life’s origin, have proposed panspermia (“seeds everywhere”). That idea suggests that life on Earth was seeded by aliens from another star system. Besides having zero evidence for such a thing, it doesn’t explain where the interstellar life came from, stretches the imagination, and requires a great deal of blind faith. When scientists and others stick to their belief in spontaneous generation or panspermia, is that intelligent or unintelligent?

Physicist and information scientist Hubert Yockey, realizing the difficulty of explaining intelligent life without an intelligent cause, wrote, “The belief that life on earth arose spontaneously from nonliving matter is simply a matter of faith in strict reductionism and is based entirely on ideology.” The faith of those who refuse to believe in intelligent design is not based on scientific evidence but on ideological bias. Do you think that believing in creation without a Creator is intelligent or unintelligent?

February 20, 2026February 18, 2026

Information Is Fundamental to Everything

At the core of everything is information. DNA carries information in every cell of the human body, as well as in the cells of animals and plants. Without the information in our genes, we could not exist. DNA is a physical molecule, but it contains information that is not physical. We write words with physical ink on physical paper, but the information in those words is not physical, and it is far more valuable than the paper itself. Information is fundamental.

Ancient Greek Stoic philosophers used the word “logos” (translated as “word” in English) to refer to the rational principle behind the universe. The apostle John gave that term a deeper meaning when he used it to refer to the One who created all things. John’s gospel begins with, “In the beginning was the Word and the Word was with God and the Word was God.” He goes on to say that the Word created all things.

When you read the Genesis creation account, you find, “And God said let there be light” (verse 3). The phrase “And God said” recurs in verses 6, 9, 11, 14, 20, 24, 26, and 29. Hebrews 11:3 tells us, “By faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God, so that the things which are seen were not made of things which are visible.” Words are not visible. Information isn’t visible. We can put information on paper by writing visible words, but the information behind those words is not visible—yet it is more important than the paper on which it is written.

Information is fundamental, immaterial, and invisible. God is spirit (4:24), meaning that He is not material. The cosmic creation event, popularly known as the Big Bang, involved the creation of matter/energy, space, and time. That means the Creator of matter/energy, space, and time must be immaterial and outside of space and time. Matter/energy cannot create itself. God’s Word created everything we see as God spoke the universe into existence. The Bible doesn’t specify when God created the universe, what physical processes He used, or how long it took. Since God is not limited by our time dimension, time means nothing to Him (2 Peter 3:8).

After the physical creation, God used information to create life, with a DNA code far more complex than any human-made computer code. There could be no life without information to guide the production of proteins necessary for forming living cells and to direct the metabolism that sustains life. Information comes only from intelligence.

The bottom line is that information is fundamental, and it’s built into every living cell. If someone says, “I will not believe unless I can see it,” they are not being honest. Everyone believes in things they cannot see. Information is fundamental, and we cannot see it. The Word created all things (John 1:3). At the right time, the Word became visible: “And the Word became flesh and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (John 1:14). Those who refuse to believe in God because they can’t see Him should remember that “the things that are seen are temporary, but the things which are not seen are eternal.” (See 2 Corinthians 4:13-18.)

January 6, 2026December 29, 2025

Orphan Genes Challenge Darwinism

The DNA in every cell in your body is made up of shorter strands called genes, which contain the instructions to produce various proteins. Neo-Darwinian evolutionary scientists look for genes with very similar sequences to others to show that one gene evolved from another through random genetic mutations. However, researchers are discovering genes that don’t resemble any other known gene. The technical term for these is taxonomically restricted genes (TRGs). These so-called orphan genes challenge Darwinism.

If all of life evolved from a common ancestor through small genetic mutations, orphan genes don’t fit this model. They either shouldn’t exist or should be extremely rare. A few years ago, evolutionists argued that only a small percentage of species’ DNA had been sequenced, and that with more research, the mystery of orphan genes would be resolved. However, the number of orphan genes continues to grow. The trend indicates that orphan genes challenge Darwinism.

Even closely related species that share a common trait can have their own unique orphan genes. In other words, the evidence does not support gradual changes caused by small mutations but instead points to entirely new, unique genes that have not been seen before. Evolutionists respond by saying natural selection can explain this, but they are unable to specify how. The research continues, but for now, it seems to me like an “evolution-of-the-gaps” argument.

As Jonathan Witt wrote in Salvo magazine, “Our uniform and repeated experience tells us that generating significant amounts of novel, functional information doesn’t happen by chance. It requires a mind. Our uniform experience tells us this, and probability calculations applied to everything from English text and software code to DNA confirm it.”

It’s safe to say that orphan genes challenge Darwinism and will likely continue to do so.

Reference: “Darwin’s Orphan Nemesis” by Jonathan Witt, in Salvo magazine, Spring 2025.

September 23, 2025September 22, 2025

First Responders in the Body

David Coppedge wrote a very interesting article about the body’s “first responders.” He described four instances where the body has its own superheroes ready in advance to handle and prevent crises that could lead to life-threatening diseases, such as cancer. These first responders in the body had to be present before they were needed. They are like police or firefighters who need the skill and training to come to the rescue when necessary. Planning and preparation indicate design.

One line of defense against infections is provided by cilia, which sweep the airways clean with wave-like motions. These hair-like structures are familiar, but recent research has shown that they provide upward as well as lateral flow to push fluids away from the airway surface. This action helps prevent bacteria, viruses, and harmful particles from reaching the cells of the airways and causing infections.

Another first responder removes toxic waste called reactive oxygen species (ROS) that develop in the cell’s mitochondria. Since these are toxic substances, ROS must be handled carefully. Organelles called peroxisomes detoxify these dangerous chemicals, sparing mitochondria from oxidative stress. This process requires two proteins that are resistant to toxins and produce a bridge that allows ROS to move safely between organelles.

This line of defense has been compared to the comic superhero, the Incredible Hulk. Dendritic cells that are part of the immune system travel through tissues looking for problems to solve, like cops on a beat. Usually, they slip through tissues, removing “bad guys” one at a time. However, when they come across a “mob” in their way, these narrow and flexible immune cells expand like the Incredible Hulk, with bulging muscles to push obstacles out of the way.

One of the first responders in the body is compared to Spartan warriors. It is the critical enzyme SPRTN. Before a cell divides, its DNA must be copied for the new cell. Unwanted proteins can latch onto the DNA strand and clog the copying machinery with cross-links called DPCs. That can lead to premature aging, cancer, or other problems. The SPRTN enzyme finds and repairs the clogs by degrading the proteins that cause them. SPRTN must degrade the clog without harming the surrounding tissue, and it does that by detecting ubiquitin tags that the DPCs carry. Understanding how SPRTN works enables scientists to develop strategies to enhance defense against age-related diseases and tissue damage caused by cancer therapies.

All of these discoveries were made through empirical observation by competent and respected scientists and reported in science journals. The first responders in the body are ready and prepared to serve and protect the human body. Like first responders to natural disasters, they are not there by accident but by a designed plan for defense and protection.

Reference: evolutionnews.org

September 19, 2025September 18, 2025

The Homochirality of Organic Molecules

Yesterday, we discussed the chirality, or handedness, of molecules, especially amino acids and proteins. The homochirality of organic molecules refers to their requirement for the same handedness, a mystery that has puzzled scientists since 1848, when Louis Pasteur first observed that some life-essential molecules had mirror-image forms. Amino acids used by living cells and the proteins they build have left-handed chirality, while DNA, RNA, and the sugars forming their building blocks are all right-handed. These facts raise a question for those who believe life arose spontaneously.

Left-handed proteins and right-handed DNA are found in all living organisms. The spiral structure of DNA needs to twist in a specific direction to function properly, but what caused the right-handed sugar molecules to come together? When half of all amino acid molecules in nature exhibit right chirality and the other half left, what force could have gathered only the left-handed ones to form the first proteins?

Scientists have speculated that cosmic rays or polarized light might have triggered this process. However, even if such forces created an initial bias for the same-handedness, they could not sustain and amplify it enough to produce a significant number of homochiral molecules to form the first living cells. In 1999, researchers proposed that electron spin created magnetism, causing left-handed peptides (short chains of amino acids) to bind to magnetic surfaces like magnetite. But this still did not explain how the homochirality of organic molecules could be amplified sufficiently to generate living cells.

Some scientists consider RNA to be the key to the origin of life. In 2009, a group of researchers studying RNA molecules suggested that a crystal called RAO could react to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotides. In 2023, other researchers used magnetism to produce RAO crystals with homochirality. However, this process required a magnetic field 6,500 times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field. Additionally, RAO has only been shown to produce two of RNA’s four nucleotides, still falling short of generating the complete homochirality of molecules needed for life.

As 2024 ended, NASA-funded research identified a problem with the so-called “RNA world” hypothesis. Simulating early Earth conditions, they found that RNA did not show a chemical bias toward selecting homochiral amino acids. The current thinking is that the homochirality of organic molecules “could have emerged through later evolutionary pressures.” In other words, we have the “evolution-of-the-gaps” theory because, of course, evolution can do anything you can imagine.

Currently, NASA scientists are analyzing samples brought back from asteroid Bennu, hoping that molecular evidence from meteorites and asteroids will demonstrate that the building blocks for life came from beyond Earth. I suspect that the force responsible for bringing life to Earth did originate outside our planet, and even beyond the universe.

References: science.org and nasa.gov

June 13, 2025June 13, 2025

Fruit Flies and Humans

The genetic data contained in DNA is rich in information. The DNA in living cells contains molecular genes that direct the synthesis of proteins necessary for the development of an organism’s body during embryonic development . As we mentioned in a previous post, the DNA of a fruit fly is 60% similar to that of a human. How can we explain the significant difference between fruit flies and humans?

How can similarities exist in the DNA of organisms that look and function very differently? According to Stephen C. Meyer, “scientists have found that the larger informational context in which genes are expressed often determines the specific function of the proteins they produce.” For example, Meyer notes that a corresponding gene in insects and vertebrates regulates the production of appendages. However, in fruit flies, it regulates the development of compound limbs with exoskeletons and multiple joints. In sea urchins, it regulates the development of spines. In vertebrates, it regulates the development of limbs with internal bony skeletons and multiple joints.

Orthodox evolutionary theory suggests that since genes control the development of anatomical structures, the corresponding genes should produce corresponding structures in various organisms. That would eliminate the differences between fruit flies and humans. Clearly, genes perform different functions based on the larger context of information in the organism. The context contains specified information that is key to the differences.

You could compare this context variability to words in an English text. The same words used in a different context can convey a very different meaning. Words can convey their intended meaning when they are used in a systematic, organized structure composed by an intelligent mind. A hodgepodge of random words can result from non-intelligent actions, but only intelligence can create a meaningful paragraph. What does that tell us when we apply that principle to genetics? Only intelligence can create a meaningful paragraph, and only intelligence can create fruit flies and humans.

Reference: Signature in the Cell by Stephen C. Meyer, pages 471-472

May 7, 2025May 28, 2025

Evidence for Design in Nature

On our websites, we often talk about evidence for design in nature. When average people see the amazingly organized structures in living organisms, they can’t help but feel that they must be designed. Even Richard Dawkins, the evolutionist best known for his worldwide atheism campaign, said that living systems “give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose” (The Blind Watchmaker, page 1). Of course, he adds that it is only an illusion. Atheist Francis Crick, who with James Watson, discovered the helical structure of DNA, warned biologists that they must “constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved” (What Mad Pursuit, page 138).

The intuition of design is nothing new. Plato and Aristotle saw evidence for design in nature and thought there must be a mind behind it. Of course, they could not know about the information-rich DNA molecule and the intricate structures within every living cell. They didn’t even know about cells. Even Charles Darwin thought that cells were just jelly-like protoplasm. He had no idea that there are machines, transportation vehicles, gates, duplicators, inspectors, and trash collectors within the cell wall in a city-like structure.

The more we learn about the inner workings of living things, the more we see design evidence not even imagined in previous years. Every living cell has a DNA molecule containing the instructions for building the proteins and structures required for that living creature. Computer pioneer Bill Gates wrote, “DNA is like a computer program, but far, far more advanced than any software ever created” (The Road Ahead, page 188). Even Richard Dawkins wrote, “The machine code in the genes is uncannily computer-like” (River Out of Eden, page 17).

Is there evidence for design in nature? Let me ask another question. Has any computer program ever created itself by chance, or did an intelligent mind write it? Apply that thought to the living things you see every day.