Evolution vs. Young Earth Creationism

The Two Models:Both creationism and evolution have models that predict how all the species we see today have arisen. Below is the evolutionary tree of life [1]: And below is the creation model which more resembles an orchard [2]: Creationism states that all species stem from the original kinds created during God’s seven days of creation. We creationists define kinds as a term that is a larger grouping than species. The origin of kinds comes from Genesis 1:11-12 “And God said, “Let the earth sprout vegetation, plants yielding seed, and fruit trees bearing fruit in which is their seed, each according to its kind, on the earth.” And it was so. The earth brought forth vegetation, plants yielding seed according to their own kinds” and further more in Genesis 1:21 and 1:24-25. For example, dogs would be defined as a biblical kind. [3]It might seem “out there” that all species stemmed from these created kinds, however, species can arise rather quickly. For example, most dog breeds have arisen in the last couple of centuries [4]. I believe my opponent and I can agree that natural selection occurs and can create new species. Both in the evolution and the creation model, natural selection plays a huge part. We will probably disagree however, how much change natural selection can create. Natural selection cannot create species outside a created kind. Dogs will remain dogs and cats will remain cats whereas evolutionists believe that such changes between kinds have occurred through natural selection.However, natural selection alone cannot drive dinosaurs-to-birds evolution or ape-like creatures to human evolution. The reason behind this simple: Nature selects certain phenotypes or traits in a species and the ones that are not selected die off with the organism lost forever to the species. However, there comes a point where nature can only select so much genetic information before there is none left. Therefore there must be a second mechanism to increase the amount of genetic information in the genome so that nature can continue to select. Evolutionists look to mutations as the mechanism but I will show in my next argument why this isn’t the case.Genetics:Genetic Entropy, an idea put forward by Cornell geneticist, Dr. John C Sanford, I believe provides the most compelling evidence that genetics don’t support evolution but rather the opposite. To begin with, I’ll present the mutation rate for humans.The current consensus among the genetic community is that point mutations per generation is around 75-175 point mutations added per generation of humans [5]. However, there are more types of mutations than substitutions. It is estimated that for every substitution mutation there is at least one micro-satellite mutation doubling the rate to around 150-350 mutations [6]. There are plenty more types of mutations that get passed down through every generation but to save space, I will not dive into those numbers.Now how many bad or deleterious mutations are there compared to the beneficial ones. Below is a diagram adapted from population geneticist, Dr. Motoo Kimura which shows the distribution of mutations [7]: As seen here, Dr. Kimura shows that the vast majority of mutations are deleterious and more importantly, cannot be selected out of the population which I will get to later on. One might ask, beneficial mutations exist, why aren’t they included in the distribution? That is because deleterious mutations greatly outnumber beneficial mutations to a point where they cannot realistically be shown in the distribution. In a study conducted by Dr. Bergman where he did a simple literature search on Biological Abstracts and Medline with the key word, “mutation”, he found that out of the 453,732 results found, 186 only mentioned the word “beneficial” [8]. There are other estimates that go as low as 1 in a million mutations being beneficial [9]. The proportion becomes even lower if you remove mutations that are only beneficial in context due to a malfunction in the genome (ex. Human lactose intolerance as the result of a malfunctioning LCT gene ) [10]. In fact, I have yet to see a mutation that increases the amount of functional genetic information by creating functional genes. However, even if I were to draw a line on the diagram as seen below to acknowledge beneficial mutations exist blowing the distribution out of proportion, there is an obvious problem. With the distribution, it can be deducted that most, if not all mutations that are passed to the next generation are deleterious. Therefore the human genome is losing functionality over time. Natural selection cannot eliminate all the deleterious mutations because as seen in the distribution, most mutations fall within the shaded “no-selection zone” meaning that most mutations are not deleterious or beneficial enough to give an organism a disadvantage or advantage that nature can select. Geneticists are in agreement that the human genome is degrading. The decline of fitness of the human species is calculated to be around 1-2% per generation [11]. How does this disprove evolution and prove creation? If genetic information cannot be increased, much less even maintained, it is ridiculous to even say that entire functional genomes of organisms were created through natural selection and mutations making the whole theory moot. Several conclusions from this information can be made to support creation.1. If functional genomes cannot arise, then the only alternative is that they were designed by an intelligent creator. 2. The rates at which genomes degrade imply a rather recent origin of species. [17]Fossils:Another issue with the evolutionary model is living fossils. For example, the horseshoe crab which still exists today remains completely identical to the fossils 445 million years old [12]. The fact that such organisms don’t change in these huge timescales proves a problem for evolution. Dr. Stephan Jay Gould, a Harvard paleontologist and an evolutionists recognizes this as a problem when he wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.” [13] The fact that modern creatures have coexisted with “ancient” species affirms the creation account that all kinds of animals were created at the same time which brings me to my next point.Dinosaurs have been used to ridicule creationists as it is seemingly absurd that humans and dinosaurs lived together. However, there is evidence that seems to point otherwise. For example, evidence that humans and dinosaurs coexisted lies in soft tissue found in dinosaur bones [14]. The tissue that was found was still able to stretch and retain its shape. However, the structures found like blood vessels, muscle, and skin decay rapidly to decomposers. In addition, proteins have been found in dinosaur bones such as collagen, hemoglobin, and osteocalcin [15]. A report by The Biochemist states that proteins such as these even under the perfect conditions at 0 degrees Celsius the proteins would not last three million years [16]. However, it is believed that dinosaurs lived in warm moist environments that would quickly degrade such proteins. Sources: [1]https://en.wikipedia.org...[2]http://creation.com...[3] The Holy Bible[4]http://www.livescience.com...[5] Kondrashov, A.S. 2002. Direct Estimate of human per nucleotide mutation rates at 20 loci causing Mendelian diseases. Human Mutation 21:12-27[6] Ellegren, H. 2000. Microsatellite mutations in the germline: implications for evolutionary interference. TIG 16:551-558[7] Kimura, M. 1979. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated. PNAS 76:3440-3444[8] Bergman, J. 2004. Research on the deterioration of the genome and Darwinism: why mutations result in degeneration of the genome. Intelligent design Conference, Biola University. April 22-23[9] Gerrish, P.J. and R. Lenski. 1998. The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population. Genetica 102/103: 127-144.[10] http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov...[11] Crow, J.F. 1997. The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386[12] http://news.discovery.com...[13] http://www.nature.com... (Must have subscription to view)[14] http://www.smithsonianmag.com...[15] https://news.ncsu.edu...[16] http://www.biochemist.org...[17] Sanford, John C. Genetic Entropy. N.p.: FMS Publications, n.d. Print.