Beneficial Mutations Don’t Add Genetic Complexity

The ratio of deleterious beneficial mutations to beneficial mutations is somewhere between 100,000:1 and 1,000,000:1. There are up to a million harmful mutations for every good mutation. The problem this creates for evolutionary time-frames, when you need many beneficial mutations to accumulate quickly, is insurmountable on its own.

But there is another problem evolution faces that compounds the size of this problem and it is this: Not a single one of those beneficial mutations can add any significant genetic complexity to an organism! Let me explain.

The majority of mutations fall into two basic classes. They will either jam an existing  genetic signal in the “off” or “on” positions or duplicate it. That’s all, nothing more, nothing less. This is due to the receptor being removed and no longer responding to its signalling molecules. While this may at times be useful, it does not support the assumption that complex biochemical genetics has arisen via evolution. It is clearly a loss of information from the original genetic instruction. The vast majority of these mutations create dysfunction. In extremely rare situations they can benefit an organism. But this is not a mechanism that can create men and women out of a single cell.

For over 100 years, an army of scientists have searched diligently for any mutations that have added beneficial complexity to a genome. Yet, in all of the world’s scientific literature there is not yet a single, clear cut example of a mutation actually adding extra beneficial genetic complexity to an organism. Over and over again I have read in my background study for this essay that their rarity precludes their scientific study. Dr Jerry Bergman’s extensive literature review in 2005 found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but only 186 included the term “beneficial mutation”, about 4 in every 10,000. Of those 186 “beneficial mutations” he found not a single one that unambiguously created new, more complex genetic information. For evolution to exist, it must continually create vast amounts of new genetic information of a higher order, but there is no observable scientific evidence to that effect.

So how can a mutation be beneficial without adding genetic information?

The often quoted examples of beneficial mutations such as adaptive immunity, nucleotide re-combination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, lactose tolerance in Europeans, resistance to HIV, and sickle-cell anaemia all fail to meet the requirements of an “increasing genetic complexity” mutation. These examples and all other examples of mutation-enhanced function quoted in the scientific literature involve loss, jamming or mere duplication of genetic information. No novel, more complex genetic information has been added to those organisms. Beneficial mutations are therefore like scratches on a car that accidently make it more aerodynamic, or the same car losing a part so it is lighter and can go faster. The complete lack of examples is strong testimony against the validity of the prime axiom of evolution; that increasing genetic complexity is entirely due to mutational build up..

And this makes perfect sense as informational copying errors such as the different types of mutations that we know of: Point mutations, duplications, omissions, deletions, insertions, trans-locations and inversions can never increase the quality of the original information. This is especially the case as the human genome can carry several different messages inside the same single block of DNA! Our DNA is a multi-dimensional, multi-linguistic school of languages, something we humans will never achieve. Copying errors can never improve an encyclopaedia, a computer code or an instruction manual. DNA is all of these combined, and much, much more.

Evolutionary theory needs a high rate of beneficial mutations and for those mutations to create new information over time. Both of these assumptions are clearly false. There are virtually no beneficial mutations, those that exist create no significant new information. There is also not enough time for them to accumulate before the multitude to harmful mutations destroy the species in the meantime. The prime axiom of evolution; that mutations lead to upward genetic progression, is therefore a lie.

Quotes From Leading Geneticists Worried About Evolution

Below are a series of quotes from leading human geneticists, including the only geneticist to have ever won a Noble Prize, on the devastating implications of the ever-increasing mutational load on the future of humanity. Their admissions are candid, with one even asking why we have not died out a 100 times over with our current rate of skyrocketing mutational load. These quote are clear evidence of a human species in decline, not evolutionary advancement.

Herman Muller    (Nobel Laureate)

It becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1…if, to make matters worse, u (the mutation rate) should be anything like 0.5…our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements. (From the article: Our load of mutations. American Journal of Human Genetics 1950, 2:111-176) Muller assumed that our mutation rate was only 0.1 per individual per generation. We now know it is 1,000 to 10,000 higher than this.

Herman Muller

…an asexual population incorporates a kind of ratchet mechanism, such that…lines become more loaded with mutations. (From the article: The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research 1:2-9) We now know that the massive number of mutations, the near-neutral nature of most of them, the presence of Y chromosomes in men, mitochondria in all humans, and the presence of large linkage blocks create the same ratchet for all sexually reproducing populations.

James Neel  (American national medal of science for biological research)

“…gamete rates for point mutations…on the order of 30 per generation…The implications of mutations of this magnitude for population genetics and evolutionary theory are profound.”

(From the article: The rate with which spontaneous mutation alters the electrophoretic mobility of polypeptides. PNAS 83:389-393) This statement was made on the assumption of 30 mutations per generation.  We now know it is at least 10 times that figure.

Alexy Kondrashov (Professor of evolutionary genetics, University of Michigan)

“Accumulation of VSDM’s (very slightly deleterious mutations) in a linage…acts like a time bomb…the existence of vertebrate lineages should be limited to 106-107 generations. (From the article: Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology 175:583-594) Confessions don’t come much better than this. He is clearly admitting we are on an exponential biological decay curve leading to the extinction of all vertebrates in 100,000 to 1,000,000 generations.

Michael Lynch (Professor Population Genetics and Genomics, University of Indiana)

Our results provide no evidence for the existence of a threshold population size beyond which a population is completely invulnerable to a mutational meltdown. (Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. The American Naturalist 146:489-518) This reference is to all current endangered species, but admission is made that it is an issue for all populations.

Noel Howell

“We should increase our attention to the broader question of how (or whether) organisms can tolerate, in the sense of evolution, a genetic system with such a high mutational burden.” (From the article: Evolution of Human DNA. How rapid does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? American Journal of Human Genetics 59:501-509)  Howell was only looking at the mutation rate inside human mitochondria when he made this statement, which has a mutation rate of only one per person per generation! This statement ignores all other types of mutations.

James Crow (Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

“It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating…the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1-2% per generation, “I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse.” (From the article: The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386) Another great confession. Without using the term, he is admitting genetic entropy.

Fred Hoyle (Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University)

“When the environment is not fixed there is a slow genetic erosion, however, which natural selection cannot prevent.” (From the article: Mathematics of Evolution. 1999) Hoyle attacked neo-Darwinian evolution with the logic of physics. As a committed atheist, he, along with Francis Crick, believed the origin of DNA had to be alien panspermia.

Adam Eyre-Walker & Peter Keightley (Professors of Biology and Evolutionary Genetics. University of Essex and Edinburgh)

“…deleterious mutation rates appear to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive…” (From the article: High genomic deleterious mutation rates in humanoids. Nature 397:344-347) This statement was made in reference to protein coding regions only, which is some 3% of our genome. What about the rest, where 80% of all mutations occur?

Kaitlyn Higgins and Michael Lynch (University of Tasmania, University of Indiana)

“We find the accumulation of new mildly deleterious mutations fundamentally alters the scaling of extinction time, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large meta-populations may be at risk of extinction.”(From the article: Meta-population extinction caused by mutation accumulation. PNAS 98: 2928-2933). This research paper is particularly interesting, and honestly admitting to genetic entropy.

Michael Lynch

“Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents in the industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries.” (From the article: Rate, molecular spectrum and consequences of human mutations. PNAS 107 (3): 961-968). This dramatic decline is due to modern medicine suppressing the natural selection of most human major mutations. Modern medicine is actually accelerating genetic entropy.

Kevin Davis

How Many Mutations Are Accumulating Each Generation?

Exactly how many deleterious mutations are accumulating inside humanity each generation? To put this another way, at what rate is the mutational load increasing? How quickly are the deleterious mutations accumulating in our genomes over time, and is this accumulation a danger to our future existence?

Let’s start by stating that mutation rates affect different species differently. Single-celled asexually reproducing organisms tend to have far lower genetic complexity so obviously experience fewer mutations per individual. E. coli has 4.8 million nucleotides while humans have 3 billion. E. coli is a single cell while we have between 50 and 100 trillion cells. Natural selection is also extremely severe in these “simple” species as every single cell is independently subject to natural selection after every single cell division.

Therefore mutations are a much larger problem in sexually reproducing larger species of trillions of cells and billions of reproductive cells which divide many times before reproduction. The potential for something to go wrong rises exponentially with time. In addition, larger sexually reproducing organisms have a greater accumulation of mutations in the male reproductive cells before reproduction, because of their Y chromosome. Mutations double every 16.5 years in human males as they age, resulting in 76% of all mutations coming down through the paternal line.

Many larger animal species have the additional problem of a relatively low population size with a highly complex genome. Humans have a different problem; a large population but a very low reproductive rate. Finally, the larger the species, the smaller overall effect of each individual mutation on the individual and therefore the less likely it is to be removed via natural selection. In these species, including us, the environment and homeostasis will have a far greater influence on reproduction than natural selection.

The Nobel Prize winning grandfather of modern human genetics, Herman Muller  established in 1950 that a mutational load of 0.3 mutations per individual per generation was the limit of human mutational tolerance. The logic was simple. If we have three children per family, we can only afford one of them to carry a large increase in mutational load, and if all carried mutations at this low level they could easily be selected out. However, if all our children had mutational loads above this level then they could not be eliminated from the human race. Mutations would begin to accumulate in a linear fashion over time. Instead of evolving upward, the human race would be on a one way trip to eventual extinction.

In 1971 fellow Nobel Prize winner, Manfred Eigen, also calculated that the maximum number of mutations allowable for evolution to progress as 1/n, or one per genome. Any figure above this would eventually result in genetic “error catastrophe”, a term he coined. For many years geneticists, such as James Crow have continued to worry about the effect of increasing numbers of deleterious mutations are having on the human population, particularly with the trend toward older parenting.

So, how many mutations per person per generation are we actually producing? Is it still within the confines needed for evolutionary theory to work suggested by Muller? Advanced studies on the human genome have now shown us the true figure. Sadly, we now know that the single point mutations (SNV’s) alone, without even counting the many other types of mutations, are accumulating on average at between 75 and 175 in our reproductive cells per person, per generation!

This is a profound discovery with huge ramifications for the future of humanity. Because this astounding fact is foundational to the evolutionary thesis, I have quoted the following admissions from evolutionary geneticists to these mutation rates in humans:

  1. Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell, Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans.

The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. The authors find this figure hard to reconcile with evolutionary theory and suggest a mutual cancelling out of mutant nucleotides via epistasis.”

  1. Catarina D. Campbell, Evan E. Eichler, Properties and Rates of Germline Mutations in Humans

Recent genome-wide studies of the SNV mutation rate in humans have started to converge. Studies based on whole-genome sequencing and direct estimates of de novo mutations give an average SNV mutation rate of 1.16 × 10−8 mutations per base pair per generation.”

In plain English this estimate is about 30 new SNV’s per person per generation. Table one of their paper gives a mean mutation rate of 96.3 per person per generation. They go on to say that this is a “lower boundary” estimate and that…

Notably, when considering the total number of mutated base pairs between SNVs and CNVs, CNVs account for the vast majority. CNV’s being copy and deletion mutations covering large number of nucleotides. Put together these two sources of mutations represent hundreds of new mutations per generation.”

  1. Neel JV, Satoh C, Goriki K, Fujita M, Takahashi N, Asakawa J, Hazama R, The Rate With Which Spontaneous Mutation Alters the Electrophoretic Mobility of Polypeptides.

The implication, if these exon rates can be generalized, is of approximately equal to 20 nucleotide mutations per gamete per generation. This estimate of the frequency of point mutations does not include small duplications, rearrangements, or deletions resulting from unequal crossing-over, transcription errors, etc.”

  1. Ellie Dolgin, Nature The Real Mutation Rate Revealed, August 29, 2009

 “Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.”

Confessions do not come clearer than that, and from the pens of the worlds leading human population geneticists. We are clearly generating an abundance of deleterious mutations, and practically zero beneficial mutations. This has profound implications for anyone who has built their worldview on the assumption that evolutionary theory has slam-dunked all opposing theories of our origins.