Having several whole genomes spread out for our examination underscores how different from one another these organisms are. According to philosopher of biology Paul Nelson, This is a remarkable, remarkable result. If it turns out that these unique genes have important functions and can t be altered without harming the organism, this would be a major blow to Darwinism. If that s the case, Nelson said, then these genes have no evolutionary predecessors, and naturalistic evolution is in deep, deep trouble and not because somebody wants the Bible to be true. As we saw earlier, Darwinian evolution works by accumulating small genetic changes.
Large jumps are anathema because they are too improbable and look too much like miracles.
Each gene, then, had to be crafted one small step at a time. But if a gene can tolerate little or no change, there can be no line of evolutionary predecessors. The reason you probably haven t heard about this is because evolutionary biologists, driven by Darwinist assumptions, have jumped to the conclusion that these genes evolved very quickly so quickly that they bear no resemblance to any predecessor genes. And instead of calling them unique genes, they call them rapidly evolving genes, substituting a Darwinian interpretation for the facts. One example of this is a recent study reported in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .