In his article, Single genes have multiple effects published in The Globe and Mail, Stephen Strauss says a little known fact about genes and mutations is causing considerable consternation in evolutionary circles.
Evolutionists believe new species were created as gene’s mutated. These mutations, if beneficial, were eventually incorporated into the species and gradually resulted in the formation of new animals over hundreds of millions of year.
Over the past few years, we have been inundated with reports of the discovery of genes that regulate eye color, hair color and list goes on.
It leaves the impression genes only affect one particular area. However, this impression couldn’t be further from the truth and this is the root of the problem. Scientists have known for decades that a single gene affects multiple areas. It is a process called pleiotropy (lit. more change).
In Strauss’ article, Sally Otto — Mathematical biology professor at the University of British Columbia — said a single gene “affects the expression of something in the order of hundreds of other genes.”
Otto believes if change of a single gene could be precisely measured, we would probably see it has effected, to varying degrees, the operation of every other gene. She added, “You can’t change selection on one thing, without changing everything.” There are no neutral changes every mutation effects a multitude of areas.
Consequently, changes that may be positive in one area invariably have a negative effect in the other areas regulated by the same single gene.
Incredibly the linkages are wildly unrelated. For example, they found a mutation in fruit flies that increases its hardiness to cold, in turn makes it more susceptible to starvation.
Though scientists have known about pleiotropy for 75 years, they just recently acknowledged the trouble this causes evolutionary theory.
Alan Orr from the University of Rochester wrote a book on this problem. He said while a particular gene mutation could increase your rate of thinking, there are so many negative spin offs in the other areas, the change won’t be integrated into the species.
Scientists, still trying to hold to evolutionary theory, are now forced to develop a number of theories to work around this huge problem. Orr suggests as a possible solution that mutations must be extremely minor so that its negative effect in other areas is similarly insignificant.
Otto — who recently published a mathematical formula in an effort to explain the positive and negative affects of these mutations — admitted she didn’t have an answer to this complex issue.
A Biblical perspective
After God was finished creating, He saw “it was very good” (Genesis 1:31). However, when sin entered the world, the genetic code of man was corrupted by sin — the sin nature. God promises at the resurrection, we will be given new bodies. I suspect our genetic code among other things will be purged of this sin nature.
But it also affected all of nature (Romans 8:22) and I wonder if one of the spin-offs of this corruption is mutation. It appears God instituted an elaborate fail-safe mechanism to prevent mutations from inserting themselves into the gene code.
The incredible interrelatedness of the gene code suggests a design so complex that it is impossible for it to be the product of random chance.
Single genes have multiple effects (Globe and Mail, January 15, 2005)