Study in Nature shoots down three basic claims of evolutionary theory

Three basic tenets of the Evolutionary theory refuted by a single study
In addition to mutations in genes, aberrant enhancer element activity at non-coding regions of the genome is a key driver of tumorigenesis

Excerpt from abstract: “In addition to mutations in genes, aberrant enhancer element activity at non-coding regions of the genome is a key driver of tumorigenesis. Here, we perform epigenomic enhancer profiling of a cohort of more than forty genetically diverse human colorectal cancer (CRC) specimens. Using normal colonic crypt epithelium as a comparator, we identify enhancers with recurrently gained or lost activity across CRC specimens. Of the enhancers highly recurrently activated in CRC, most are constituents of super enhancers, are occupied by AP-1 and cohesin complex members, and originate from primed chromatin. Many activate known oncogenes, and CRC growth can be mitigated through pharmacologic inhibition or genome editing of these loci. Nearly half of all GWAS CRC risk loci co-localize to recurrently activated enhancers. These findings indicate that the CRC epigenome is defined by highly recurrent epigenetic alterations at enhancers which activate a common, aberrant transcriptional programme critical for CRC growth and survival.”

My comment: This study just shot down three basic pseudoscientific claims of the theory of evolution: We’ve been taught that random mutations and natural selection are key drivers of evolution and that at least 97% of our DNA is junk.

However, modern science has found that:

  1. Mutations will not lead to evolution because they are genetic errors. There are 200,000 disease-causing genetic mutations in the human DNA. The so called natural selection is not able to filter them out.

  2. Mutations are not random changes. They are caused by poor nutrition, smoking, alcohol, stress, toxins, radiation, lack of exercise etc. Mutations are results of our lifestyles. Variation in nature is caused by epigenetic factors.

  1. We shouldn’t use the term ‘junk-dna’ anymore. Non-coding regions of the genome are crucial regulatory areas for gene expression, cellular backup mechanisms and survival strategies for our heart, brain and other important organs.

There are no mechanisms for evolution. We’ve been created. Don’t get misled.


So how do you think you are going to prove that, just because many, many mutations lead to disease, that there are zero mutations that lead to additional capacities?

Read about the evolutionary advantages of Sickle Cell anemia in high malarial regions of the world:

Likewise, are you really trying to argue that because we know bad habits can correlate to increased mutations… that only bad habits must cause mutations? How many biology classes have you ever had?

So, as long as I eat right and don’t smoke, I can walk through a bath of radiation and fear no mutations in my own DNA or in the DNA of my offspring?

Come on… where’s the punchline? For a joke, it’s not very funny…

Everything points to God-Guided Evolution. Don’t be misled by untrained amateur scientists!


I could agree with the first sentence, but the rest is half-truth at best, as many mutations occur in well fed non-smoking, non-drinking bacteria and humans. Mutations are the result of life, not just lifestyle.


Sounds like mutations were invented in the late 20th century…


A high majority of individuals reading the BioLogos forum agree with you on this point 100%. It just so happens that the high majority also believes that God used evolution to do it. Can we build on points of sound agreement instead of using poorly-informed arguments to emphasize disagreement?


Actually we should continue to use it. Junk DNA is not the same as non-coding DNA.

Here are some references worth checking out. These describe our understanding of Junk DNA and highlight particular and popular misconceptions of the term.


It’s amazing how many will use this false equivocation, despite the fact that the first blockbuster demonstration that noncoding DNA was functional was the lac promoter way back in 1961. That’s no typo: nineteen sixty one, 56 years ago!!!

Moreover, this is a staple of introductory genetics and molecular biology courses, even online, so there’s really no excuse that I can see.

Tomi, what’s your excuse for equivocating between noncoding and junk?

From Dan Graur’s blog, a useful graphic:

1 Like

So, you are saying that disrupted blood cells are an example of evolution. And I showed you that 10 million genetic errors in the human dna point out that evolution is not happening.

  1. Cancers occur in somatic cells which are no involved in reproduction. The development of cancer in one’s lifetime is not evolution. Evolution involves HERITABLE changes, so those would be limited to changes in the genomes of sperm and eggs.

  2. Mutations are random with respect to fitness, which is what scientists have meant by random from the very start (e.g. Luria, Delbruck, the Lederbergs). The processes that cause mutations are blind to what the organism needs, much like how the dice are not influenced by where you put your chips on the Craps table.

  3. Just because you can find functional non-coding DNA does not mean that all non-coding DNA is functional. This is just a basic category error. If I say that a dog is a mammal, does that mean all mammals are dogs? Of course not. There is still a whole bunch of non-coding DNA that does not show any evidence of function while showing plenty of evidence that it has been accumulating mutations at a rate consistent with neutral drift.

So we still have all of the mechanisms of evolution in place.

1 Like

There are 40 million mutations that separate the chimp and human genomes. Are you saying that all of these mutations are harmful in chimps and/or humans?

1 Like

From the human genome sequencing papers I have read, the number of mutations that occur in offspring is correlated with the age of the father. Women form all of the eggs they will ever have while still in the womb, but men continuously produce new sperm cells over their lifetime. As they age, their sperm will contain more and more mutations.

So age is really the main factor when looking at mutation rates in an evolutionary context. Mutations that occur in somatic cells are not relevant to the evolution of populations.


Most of human mutations don’t occur randomly. Epigenetic factors are linked to genetic changes.

About 200,000 disease-causing genetic mutations have been discovered in the human DNA. Are these alterations random changes? Let’s figure it out.

Excerpt: "Human mutations don’t occur randomly. In fact, transitions (changes from A <-> G and C <-> T) are expected to occur twice as frequently as transversions (changes from A <-> C, A <-> T, G <-> C or G <-> T).

One of the most surprising features of many variant lists in humans is that C->T changes (C reference, T variant) are more frequent than T->C changes. Likewise, G->A changes are more frequent than A->G changes.

At first, this might seem a bit puzzling. For example, perhaps we might expect that the two counts should be extremely similar. However, the reference makes perfect biological sense – and the explanation below is due to Tom Blackwell.

The major mechanism for new mutations (in warm-blooded animals) is deamination of 5’-methyl C to uracil (equivalently T) producing (C → T) or, on the complementary strand, (G → A). This was first studied for CpG dinucleotide sites, but it also occurs at lower rates throughout the genome at any C whether followed by G or not."

My comment: So, if an unmethylated cytosine deaminates, it turns to uracil and glycosylase, the repair enzyme, fixes this error. But if the same phenomenon occurs within methylated cytosine turning it into thymine, then glycosylase bypasses that alteration and also a G → A transition occurs during next replication procedure. This is a mechanism.

It’s clear that the level and patterns of methylation affect human genetic alterations. The most interesting phenomenon occurs at CpG dinucleotides and especially in CpG islands, genomic regions with a high frequency of CpG sites. Interesting is also, that human immune system genes typically have a clear CpG island. Seems that they were designed to experience alterations. Sounds logical.

Can we do something to keep our genes normally methylated and by this way, reduce the possibility to genetic changes? Yes, we can. Factors that mostly affect your epigenome are:

  • Diet
  • Stress
  • Toxins
  • Viruses and other pathogens

So, we can try to change our life habits by eating healthy food, avoiding stress, doing physical exercise and avoiding toxins (alcohol, smoking, chemicals etc.). It’s our own choice.

Human genetic mutations don’t occur randomly. Interesting is that this same mechanism is functional in almost every organism in nature. However, it will not lead to large scale evolution but it can be associated with some changes linked to the immune system . This mechanism is the most significant reason for genetic degradation. The evolutionary theory is a big lie. Don’t get lost.

For those who haven’t been reading any science for 30, 40 or 50 years …

The usual definition of Evolution is any change in the genetics of a given population of a life form over time.
Change is frequently measured in terms of percentages of alleles. Sometimes the genetics of a population change purely by drift … and not because of any special changes in the environment. That is still evolution… because it changed.

Bacteria are not un-evolved. They’ve been evolving for just as long as anything else alive has been evolving.

Other important terms are:
Speciation: when enough change happens in one population that it is no longer reproductively compatible with another population of individuals that used to be able to breed with them.

Even Evangelical Sunday school teachers are starting to recognize that Speciation is a rather low hurdle, and that there had to be some kind of speciation since the Ark landed - - or we wouldn’t have millions of different species and kinds today.

Once Speciation is accepted, “Common Ancestry” is a given … since the two different populations, by definition, descend from a common population before the differentiation occurred.

Everything points to God-Guided Evolution. Don’t be misled by untrained amateur scientists!

Muntjacs fight pseudoscience
Rapid ‘speciation’ and chromosome loss don’t support the theory of evolution

Excerpt: “The Red Muntjac has the lowest diploid chromosomal number in mammals (2n = 6 for females and 7 for males) whereas Reeves’ Muntjac has 2n = 46 in both sexes (remarkably, these two species can produce viable F1 hybrids in captivity).”

My comment: Despite the huge difference in chromosome count (2n=6 and 2n=46), those two breeds of Muntjac are able to get viable offspring. Such interesting cases of hybridization can be observed in captivity, for example in zoos.

Chromosomes of the Red Muntjacs are tightly packaged because of huge areas of heterochromatin. Telomeres are also very strong indicating large areas of faulty genes.

I also found an interesting phenomenon regarding the number of chromosomes. Because shifting diet causes genetic mutations, the heavy loss of chromosomes has driven the Red Muntjac into omnivory. This finding needs a lot of further study to be confirmed.

There are no mechanisms for evolution. We can’t even use the term ‘micro evolution’ because how come could anyone call information loss as evolution? Micro devolution is a better expression.

Organisms experience variation very rapidly. Five new Muntjac ‘species’ were ‘discovered’ in 1990’s. My claim is that they were not only discovered, they were actually new varieties of that kind. Rapid variation is a scientific fact:

Rapid ‘evolution’ in real time. New lizard ‘species’ in 15 years:

Many new primate ‘species’ in the 2000’s

New mammal ‘species’ arisen in 2000’s

A new ‘species’ is evolving right before our eyes

Watching new ‘species’ ‘evolve’ (adapt) in real time

Meet the 20,000 new ‘species’ we discovered in a single year

A new fish ‘species’ from Lake Victoria

New bird ‘species’ in 19 years

New butterfly ‘species’ in USA:

New fish species:

New species just in front of our eyes:

New butterfly species in four years:

Six new species from Madeira mouse in 500 years

Thousands of new fish species:

Morphological differences in 10 000 years:

Mice ‘evolution’

New sparrow race under 50 years

Mites ‘evolved’ rapidly

Six new snake ‘species’

Everything points to Biblical Creation and Design. Don’t get misled.

Humans and chimps are two different type of organisms. We have not evolved from chimps. Serious science doesn’t support such idea. For example, 95% of lncRNAs are different between humans and chimps.

So, the BioLogos “majority” is now forcing God to abide by the [illogical] rules dictated by atheist Darwin and his minions? How can you not see the irony?

  1. “Random” is mathematically unknowable from a sequence of events - the only thing you can observe.
  2. What is your fitness function? There is no such thing as fitness. “Fittest” now can be dead next minute without any descendants.
  3. As far as we can observe, there is no “mechanism of evolution” whatsoever.

You presuppose evolution and want to use this as an argument? Circular logic 101.

I believe God manifests Himself both in the Book of His words and the Book of His works. Here is the Francis Bacon quote you’ve probably read before:

“To conclude, therefore, let no man upon a weak conceit of sobriety or an ill-applied moderation think or maintain that a man can search too far, or be too well studied in the book of God’s word, or the book of God’s works, divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavor an endless progress or proficience in both; only let men beware that they apply both to charity, and not to swelling; to use, and not to ostentation; and again, that they do not unwisely mingle or confound these learnings together.”

@NonlinOrg, I realize that you think I “unwisely mingle” the two Books. However, based on solid, factual science, I disagree with you. I do not believe I am “forcing God to abide” by anything, and I could suggest that you are forcing God to comply with your limited, literal view of the Bible.

We are at an impasse, so here is my suggestion: let us accept that we agree to disagree about this non-vital issue, and choose instead to seek harmony with fellow brothers and sisters in the risen Jesus Christ.

I am quite certain that if modern science did indeed refute evolutionary theory, the evidence would be in a peer-reviewed journal, and not on someone’s blog.