Dethroning the Dogma “Mutations Occur at Random”

Honesty is good for the soul…especially when the evidence against you is piling up. Some evolutionary biologists held an astoundingly candid conference in Lisbon, Portugal, called On the Nature of Variation: Random, Biased and Directional. The conference’s aim was to provide a context for “critically evaluating the rationale behind” evolutionary assumptions about “variation randomness in the light of new developments.” On center stage for reevaluation was “the underlying assumption supporting adaptationism…that variation is somehow random, namely, that it is neither biased nor directional.” It’s hard to imagine evolutionists seriously asking the questions “Why was variation characterized as random in the first place?” and “How useful is the doctrine of variational randomness? And how should it be characterised?”¹

Skeptical questions abound. Two recent papers are titled “What prevents mainstream evolutionists teaching the whole truth about how genomes evolve?”² and “Who ever thought genetic mutations were random?”³ Likely, most scientists embracing Darwinism would be surprised to know that hundreds of research papers published since the 1970s identify nonrandom “adaptive” or controlled genetic modifications that produce purposeful outcomes. I’ve had discussions with evolutionary biologists who’d never heard of controlled genetic modifications and were disinclined to believe me.

That’s because longstanding evolutionary theory “is based on the tenet that new phenotypes arise through a process relying on the raw material supplied by accidental, numerous, successive, and slight genetic changes.”⁴ But did a reliable base of scientific evidence ever justify the assertion that most adaptive traits could be attributed to random genetic errors, i.e., “mutations” as commonly understood?

The evolutionary biologists organizing the Lisbon conference are fully familiar with the mantra “mutations occur at random.” No biology student escapes indoctrination. They’ve heard the sacred confession “mutations occur at random” endlessly repeated in chantlike fashion at conferences and in literature. From their conference description,¹ which is well worth the time to read, they knew that presenting evidence for nonrandom genetic change is one thing, but questioning the belief that mutations occur at random could place them out on a limb as Darwinian heretics.

For instance, here’s how orthodox Darwinists are expected to behave. Bacteriologists conducting research on bacteria uncovered that at least some “mutations” were not random. Their conclusive findings were summed up in an article titled “Predictable evolution trumps randomness of mutations.”⁵ Yet, even as the writer presented contradictory evidence, he still respectfully genuflected to the random mutation creed, saying,

Although mutations, the driver of evolution, occur at random, a study of the bacterium Escherichia coli reveals that nature often finds the same solution to the same problem again and again….The DNA showed that in some cases identical mutations appeared independently in all three test tubes.⁵

As a bonus, this Darwinist’s scientific explanation for the cause of nonrandom genetic changes was to personify nature as a mystical agent that somehow “finds” identical solutions to biological problems.

That’s why it was shocking, yet refreshingly honest, when the Lisbon conference organizers asked why variation was characterized as random in the first place. But that reveals a remarkable lack of insight that’s widespread in contemporary evolutionary biology regarding why evolutionary theory has been fashioned the way it is today.

If creatures were static and could not adapt to changing conditions, then a theory of evolution could never get going. But creatures can change. Thus, it is the explanation of adaptation that is steering the direction of the creation-evolution debate. How adaptation happens, it seems, is a question of vital importance.

The anti-theistic power of Darwinism lies in one thing only—its anti-engineering assumptions. Darwin’s key followers developed a model of adaptation that assumes genetic changes are random, accidental, broken, trial-and-error, noncontrolled, and purposeless. That’s why most evolutionary biologists believe that genetic changes are essentially random errors and mistakes, i.e., mutations.⁷

The Lisbon conference organizers underscored the lethality of directed genetic change to the anti-design purpose of evolutionary theory, saying,

Futuyma (2005, p. 179) makes the same point by invoking the spectre of Lamarckism: “The argument that adaptively directed mutation does not occur is one of the fundamental tenets of modern evolutionary theory. If it did occur, it would introduce a Lamarckian element [nonrandom, useful changes to traits in response to changing conditions] into evolution, for organisms would then acquire adaptive hereditary characteristics in response to their environment.”⁹

After presenting evidence for nonrandom genetic change, they added that Futuyma only makes “reference to theoretical reasons for dismissing the possibility that mechanisms of directional mutagenesis might exist.”¹⁰

It’s remarkable that well-informed Darwinists like [the late Jay] Gould and Futuyma see nonrandom, directed genetic change as a nightmare (i.e.,“a specter”) to evolutionary theory. Perhaps creationists and ID advocates should be investing focused effort to make the nightmare come true.

For the full article along with footnotes, see:

https://www.icr.org/article/dethroning-dogma-mutations-occur-at/