Skip to content
I am a chemical engineer & have been studying evolution/creation for many years (My favorite book is by the atheist Dr. Michael Denton, "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis"), but I have not done any indepth study of genetics. With that given as my background, why is it not logical that almost all changes (skin pigmentation, nostril size, etc.) which may be more beneficial in certain environments could be from dominant and recessive genes--all of which were in Adam & Eve?
DNA mutations are not only rare, but our bodies have mechanisms that seek them out & destroy them.
Apparently, there is a chance that a DNA mutation will be beneficial, but even that is usually a LOSS of information (such as bacteria becoming resistant to antibiotics).
The summary of my argument is that mutations are so rare (if possible at all), that "simple" genetics (dominant & recessive genes) is much more likely to be the cause of the MILLIONS of variations in the creatures living on this planet.
As for citations, I believe what I just wrote is what the creation scientists behind the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), Creation Magazine (creation.com), & Answers Magazine (AnswersInGenesis.org) teach.
More information about formatting options
Copyright 2014 Creation Moments. All Rights Reserved.
August Ash, Inc. -
Minneapolis Web Design