Can mutations produce mutation repair systems?

To save followers of this discussion the trouble of scrolling back, a reprint below of the conclusions drawn in my post on 7 April:


  1. Mutations are not the friend of the DNA, but its enemy because mutations cause cancer and hereditary diseases. No one will put his/her genitals under an X-ray machine to bless his/her children with improved DNA.
  2. Living nature continuously adapts to its environment, NOT by mutations but by the mechanism of recombination of gene-variants (‘alleles’) and selection, and by gene regulation.
    ( )
  3. In every cell, every day hundreds of thousands of mutations of the DNA occur. Fortunately, these mutations are largely repaired by mutation repair systems, for the discovery of which the Nobel Prize in Chemistry was awarded in 2015 . The mutation repair systems prevent the DNA in every cell to turn into complete chaos within a lifetime.
  4. Most of the mutations of the DNA consist of oxidative deamination, causing the information recorded by the DNA to ‘rust away’, like the information on a page of inkjet print rusts away by the oxidation of the ink. The mutation repair systems recover the damaged information by a multitude of interconnected chemical reduction processes, using the redundancy of information in pairs of chromosomes, pairs of chromatids and pairs of DNA-strands.
  5. Mutations cannot produce mutation repair systems, because the laws of logic and of chemistry contradict this theory: a phenomenon P cannot produce M and Opposite-M at the same time (for example: apples cannot fall downwards and upwards at the same time) and oxidation cannot produce reduction (for example rusting of iron, or rusting of DNA, cannot produce the de-rusting of iron, or the de-rusting of DNA). According to the playing rules of empirical science, the theory that mutations can produce mutation repair systems is nonsense and must be removed from the domain of science and transported to the domain of ‘Dark Ages illogical beliefs’.
  6. Naturalists and Darwinists are convinced that organic molecules possess the magical property of spontaneous self-organization, which allows them to form increasingly complex structures with an increasingly higher energy level. This pre-Victorian alchemist faith is diametrically in conflict with empirical science. Molecules possess the natural property of spontaneous disintegration. Natural physical processes are decay processes. The production of increasingly complex structures with an increasingly higher energy level requires the building and running of a factory, as Miller and Urey have demonstrated in 1953 yet. If not, energy would become available for free (‘Proof by contradiction’).
  7. Naturalists and Darwinist strongly believe that mutations can do anything, including the production of mutation repair systems. They value their precious and unshakable faith in de doctrines of Naturalism and Darwinism higher than the laws of logic and chemistry. This attitude makes them an enemy of empirical science and revives the Dark Ages.

Dr. William DeJong

Just one last rabbit trail, since I do enjoy this topic.

For complex eukaryotes, replication time really isn’t a problem. For prokaryotes, however, replication time is often very important which is why you see such compact genomes in bacteria.

As to energy budget, I highly doubt that a 100 million v. 3 billion base genome really makes that much difference relative to the total energy used. I haven’t done the math, but I would suspect that the lifetime savings in energy would equate to running a mile just once a year. The amount of ATP used for muscle contractions, keeping our bodies at 98.6F, RNA transcription, protein translation, etc. would seem to be way higher than DNA replication, at least in my estimation. In the case of the bladderwort there is a shortage of phosphates which would limit the source for nucleotides, not necessarily the energy needed to replicate DNA.

1 Like

The only stupid questions are the ones not asked. :wink:

There are some people who argue for junk DNA filling the function of a nucleoskeleton, sort of a rough framework that fills out the nucleus and frames the functional bits of the genome. Of course, this would not be sequence specific function which is the type of function that most biologists are looking for. However, the requirement for a bulky genome is still in the early phases of testing, but it is being considered.

This is why the bladderwort genome is so interesting to me. The human genome is 3 billion bases. The onion genome is 16 billion bases. The bladderwort genome is just 0.083 billion bases, a mere fraction of the human and onion genomes, but it still has about the same gene content as both of those genomes. Apparently, the experiment you are describing may have already been done by nature with the bladderwort genome.


And yet mutations are responsible for the phenotypic adaptations that we see in species, such as the phenotypic differences between humans and chimps. Also, it is a fact that mutations occur.

The differences between chimps and humans is not due to a different mix of the same alleles. Humans and chimps have different alleles, and those differences are due to mutations.

And yet everyone is born with 50 to 100 mutations. This is just a fact.

DNA repair mechanisms are not causing the mutations, so they are not producing M and Opposite-M.

Was it magic when less complex molecules combined to create more complex molecules in the Miller-Urey experiment?

Can you please explain why mutations can not produce a protein that binds to DNA and changes DNA?


Irreparable mutations produce proteins that cause the selective disadvantage of cancer and hereditary diseases. According to Darwin, organisms that suffer from cancer and hereditary diseases will become extinct in short time. As a consequence, their offspring cannot develop mutation repair systems that recover information that is lost by the ‘rusting away’ of the DNA or by damaging radiation and chemicals, using the redundancy of information in pairs of chromosomes, chromatids and DNA-strands. See further conclusion 2 and 5 at the end of my post nr. 61 on 17 April.

Not all mutations will cause cancer or hereditary diseases, but yeah, most of the time mutations will have neutral or deleterious effects. But once in a while a mutation can end up confering an advantage which will be selected, and that is not just theory, we can see that happening in experiments with bacteria.

That one was not selected on purpose, but it is a good example of that:


It was “peer-reviewed” in an extremely low impact journal published by a predatory publishing house with extremely low academic standards. The article has not received any academic recognition whatsoever, because it makes claims without evidence.

No, they demonstrated (with evidence), that your “mutation protection paradox” does not exist. To date you have not responded to this.

1 Like

I am not seeing an explanation as to how mutations could not produce a protein that binds to and alters DNA. Want to try again?

1 Like

It has been 8 days since @WilliamDJ has last posted. Dare we awaken his slumber?

This topic was automatically closed 6 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.

“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6

This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.