{"id":345738,"date":"2023-03-09T05:00:00","date_gmt":"2023-03-09T13:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/?p=345738"},"modified":"2023-03-09T05:00:00","modified_gmt":"2023-03-09T13:00:00","slug":"new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory","title":{"rendered":"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In my undergraduate evolution course my teacher gave me a paper by biologist Motoo Kimura<\/a>, who is known for introducing the neutral theory of molecular evolution. I became his follower as he explained how \u201cJunk DNA<\/a>\u201d could have more mutations than neo-Darwinism<\/a> could explain. Kimura\u2019s observations may have finally been explained, though in an unexpected way.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In June 2022, a team of University of Michigan biologists published an article called \u201cSynonymous Mutations in Representative Yeast Genes Are Mostly Strongly Non-neutral.\u201d1<\/sup> The words \u201cstrongly non-neutral\u201d suggest far more than what happens in yeast genes\u2014they carry significant implications for a scientific paradigm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In fact, the authors claimed that 60 years of neo-Darwinism, aka the modern synthesis<\/a>, has been challenged by the discovery that most \u201csilent\u201d (synonymous<\/a>) mutations were not neutral but harmful. I\u2019ll explain why, but first I\u2019ll provide some background on the genetic code of life.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Codons and Amino Acids<\/strong>
The discovery of the genetic code<\/a> in 1961 allowed scientists to learn how information in DNA<\/a> molecules is translated into proteins<\/a>, which are the working parts of living cells. Scientists noted that DNA had four nucleotides that \u201ccode\u201d for 20 amino acids<\/a> that make up proteins. Three-letter DNA units called \u201ccodons\u201d code each of the 20 amino acids. DNA has 64 codon combinations for 20 amino acids (see figure 1).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 1: Amino Acid Codon Table<\/strong>
Credit: Wikimedia Commons<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why was this the case? Why a \u201credundant\u201d 64 to 20 \u201ccode\u201d and not simply a 20 to 20 ratio? Molecular biologist Francis Crick, the codiscoverer of the DNA helix, said it was simply a \u201cfrozen accident,\u201d meaning that the genetic code was not designed for optimality but was functional and became frozen in place (with the redundant codons) as the mode of genetic inheritance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Mutations<\/strong>
Occasional errors in the genetic code, called point mutations<\/a>, can be either \u201csynonymous\u201d or \u201cnonsynonymous.\u201d Synonymous mutations are \u201csilent,\u201d meaning that they don\u2019t alter the protein sequences. Nonsynonymous mutations alter the protein sequences. The research team learned that redundant synonymous codons accommodate synonymous (the same) mutations with no change in amino acid production. They reasoned that \u201cneutral\u201d evolution protects organisms from too many mutations (hence, harm).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, scientists now know that neo-Darwinian mutations and protein production do not adequately explain how organisms pass along fitness to survive. Other factors are involved in non-Darwinian adaptation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If a mutation makes a nonsynonymous (not the same) codon, then a different protein is produced. This is how natural selection drives evolution. In support of this neo-Darwinian model, Crick proposed the central dogma of molecular biology, which is an explanation of the flow of genetic information within a biological system.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Figure 2: Central Dogma of Molecular Biochemistry<\/strong>
Credit: Wikipedia<\/em> (author\u2019s note included next to black arrows)<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does the Central Dogma Explain Genetics?<\/strong>
The central dogma proposes that the genetic flow of information is as follows: DNA makes RNA and RNA makes protein. The central dogma supports the nonsynonymous\/synonymous neo-Darwinian model. It focuses on the \u201cgene\u201d-centric<\/a> view of genetics with an oversimplification of the mechanisms at hand, mainly that the phenotype<\/a> (protein) was entirely dependent on the DNA. On this view, we are reduced to our genes, and random favorable nonsynonymous mutations drive our destiny via natural selection.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The researchers measured the differences in protein production per the nonsynonymous\/synonymous selective mechanism, and it seems to have verified their neo-Darwinian model. Yet, while true on one level, the central dogma does not account for numerous factors that the UM researchers (among others) discovered. The central dogma assumption of DNA transferring to protein doesn\u2019t fully explain what happens in genetic mutations. Fitness and non-Darwinian adaptation have a role.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Other researchers have sequenced these mutations and derived simple formulas; for example, the Ka\/Ks<\/a> ratio of nonsynonymous to synonymous mutations, to calculate the strength of natural selection. Thousands of research efforts over the decades have used such methods that appear to support the notion that \u201cnatural selection did it,\u201d meaning that natural selection randomly selected which mutations would be synonymous and which would be nonsynonymous.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

However, many scientists, including me, doubted that so many favorable nonsynonymous mutations could perfectly line up over time. Simple probability worked against it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Codon Bias<\/strong>
About 20 years ago, many researchers noted that synonymous codons were not random. Instead, they were \u201cbiased\u201d in their usage. What this means is that the genetic codes of different organisms are often biased toward using one (and not others) of the several codons that encode the same amino acid. This observation was different from evolution theory assumptions that focused on protein production.2<\/sup> Now, this codon bias underpins fundamental research efforts in genetics, including the UM researchers\u2019 findings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what changed over 60 years since the discovery of the genetic code and synonymous codons?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The metagenomic<\/a> era began. Researchers developed inexpensive sequencing machines that resulted in massive DNA data for comparison. The codon bias was confirmed across all life. This confirmation promoted a race to discover why there are biased usages and to expand the question past the neo-Darwinian nonsynonymous\/synonymous models, which yielded no firm answers to this question. In addition, strong computer models could measure not just protein output (per neo-Darwinism) but the \u201cfitness effect\u201d or non-Darwinian adaptation of these mutations on the organism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It became evident that even though synonymous mutations produced the same protein, different synonymous codons via codon bias could change the organism\u2019s fitness, as these biologists show in their yeast studies. These effects were seen not so much at the DNA level as the central dogma claimed, but at the RNA level. But this observation implies that there is another code outside of the central dogma and this code deflects attention from the \u201cforce\u201d of natural selection. (I put \u201cforce\u201d in quotes because many people treat natural selection as a force where it\u2019s better qualified as a passive negative \u201cfilter.\u201d)<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s been discovered that there are numerous other steps between DNA and proteins affected by synonymous codons and that synonymous mutation can strongly affect them outside of the central dogma.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

New Technique Shows High Rate of Harmful Mutations<\/strong>
At this point, scientists have ascertained that only measuring protein production by natural selection operating within with the central dogma and beneficial nonsynonymous mutations has left much to be discovered. Before this UM study, there had been several studies on synonymous mutations showing a range of adaptation effects, primarily deleterious.3<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

These UM biologists used a new tool. In 2000, the CRISPR\/Cas9 system was developed. It allowed genetic engineering to achieve a level never contemplated. The team used it to induce mutations precisely to notice non-Darwinian fitness or adaptive effects, not just protein production.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

They stated that one-quarter to one-third of protein-coding DNA sequence point mutations are synonymous. They quantified the fitness of each mutant strain by measuring how quickly it adaptively reproduced relative to the nonmutant fitness. Surprisingly, 76% of synonymous mutations were significantly deleterious (recall the words \u201cstrongly non-neutral\u201d in the title), while only 1.3% were especially beneficial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This high percentage of harmful mutations has significant implications for studying human disease mechanisms and evolutionary theory. If 76% of synonymous (silent) mutations are harmful to an organism, how have organisms survived?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The team concluded, \u201cSince the genetic code was solved in the 1960s, synonymous mutations have generally been thought benign. We now show that this [neo-Darwinian] belief is false.\u201d4<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Since many biological conclusions rely on neutral synonymous mutations, their results have huge implications. They point out that synonymous mutations are generally ignored in the study of disease-causing mutations. This advance might require a rethink of genetics in medicine.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Does Evidence Point to Evolution or Design?<\/strong>
As important as this research is, was the biological team\u2019s data met with accolades? No. After all, it stood to correct 60 years of evolutionary theory and possibly change genetics in medicine. Further, it explains new aspects of the \u201cfrozen\u201d accident of the genetic code for the first time. Rather than a random accident, it appears that something else is responsible for freezing the genetic code in its universal form.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s been neo-Darwinian pushback. Biochemist Larry Moran claims, \u201cthe Nature<\/em> paper failed to exercise the proper scrutiny of a report that contradicted many previous [neo-Darwinian] studies.\u201d5<\/sup><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I would argue that Moran sidesteps the fact that Nature<\/em> is the<\/em> most respected journal in evolution and biology today. But it seems that from Moran\u2019s perspective, the researchers committed the \u201cunpardonable sin\u201d\u2014they questioned neo-Darwinian theory.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Interestingly enough, Darwin would most likely have agreed with the paper. He looked at natural selection at the fitness level, unlike the hardened gene-centric neo-Darwinian view. I don\u2019t think Darwin would have been a neo-Darwinist.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Could it be that a 170-year quasi-religious commitment to natural selection caused evolutionists to stop asking important questions at the first discovery of the genetic code? Could the genetic code have been frozen for a reason? Could it have been designed<\/em> for adaptation rather than as a mechanism of natural selection?<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Psalmist says, \u201cHow many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures\u201d (Psalm 104:24).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

I might add, \u201cyou made them able to adapt from the beginning.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Endnotes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

    \n
  1. Xukang Shen et al., \u201cSynonymous Mutations in Representative Yeast Genes Are Mostly Strongly Non-Neutral,\u201d Nature<\/em> 606 (June 8, 2022): 725\u201331, doi:10.1038\/s41586-022-04823-w<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  2. In\u00eas Fragata et al., \u201cThe Fitness Landscape of the Codon Space across Environments,\u201d Nature Heredity<\/em> 121 (August 20, 2018): 422\u201337, doi:10.1038\/s41437-018-0125-7<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  3. Joshua B. Plotkin and Grzegorz Kudla, \u201cSynonymous But Not the Same: the Causes and Consequences of Codon Bias,\u201d Nature<\/em> Reviews Genetics<\/em> (November 23, 2010): 32\u201342, doi:10.1038\/nrg2899<\/a>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  4. \u201cStudy: Most \u2018Silent Genetic Mutations Are Harmful, Not Neutral, a Finding with Broad Implications<\/a>,\u201d Michigan News, University of Michigan, June 8, 2022.<\/li>\n\n\n\n
  5. Larry Moran, \u201cAre Synonymous Mutations Mostly Neutral or Are They Deleterious?\u201d<\/a> Sandwalk blog, August 23, 2022, https:\/\/sandwalk.blogspot.com\/2022\/08\/are-synonymous-mutations-mostly-neutral.html?m=1<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

    A groundbreaking genetic study challenges 60 years of neo-Darwinism by revealing most ‘silent’ mutations harm fitness, urging a rethink in evolution and medical genetics.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":588,"featured_media":345792,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_person_authors":[402515],"_kad_blocks_custom_css":"","_kad_blocks_head_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_body_custom_js":"","_kad_blocks_footer_custom_js":"","footnotes":"","_classifai_error":"","_classifai_text_to_speech_error":"","_classifai_text_to_speech_scheduled":false},"categories":[63987,63990],"tags":[70798,70783,70948],"discipline":[],"reading-level":[64149],"class_list":["post-345738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-evolution","category-life","tag-genetic-code","tag-genetic-research","tag-evolutionary-theory","reading-level-advanced-deep-dive"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nNew Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory - Reasons to Believe<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"A groundbreaking genetic study challenges 60 years of neo-Darwinism by revealing most 'silent' mutations harm fitness, urging a rethink in evolution and medical genetics.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"A groundbreaking genetic study challenges 60 years of neo-Darwinism by revealing most 'silent' mutations harm fitness, urging a rethink in evolution and medical genetics.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Reasons to Believe\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/RTBOfficial\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-09T13:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"2560\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"832\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Guest Writer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@rtb_official\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@rtb_official\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Guest Writer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Guest Writer\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bd0fdf7d6925b1c2bff03327f8913f94\"},\"headline\":\"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-09T13:00:00+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory\"},\"wordCount\":1632,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Genetic Code\",\"genetic Research\",\"Evolutionary Theory\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Evolution\",\"Life\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory\",\"name\":\"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory - Reasons to Believe\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-09T13:00:00+00:00\",\"description\":\"A groundbreaking genetic study challenges 60 years of neo-Darwinism by revealing most 'silent' mutations harm fitness, urging a rethink in evolution and medical genetics.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/03\\\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg\",\"width\":2560,\"height\":832},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\\\/evolution\\\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Creation\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/creation\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":3,\"name\":\"Life\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/topics\\\/creation\\\/life\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":4,\"name\":\"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/\",\"name\":\"Reasons to Believe\",\"description\":\"\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Reasons to Believe\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/05\\\/RTB_minimal_swirl_logo.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2022\\\/05\\\/RTB_minimal_swirl_logo.png\",\"width\":365,\"height\":365,\"caption\":\"Reasons to Believe\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/RTBOfficial\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/rtb_official\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.instagram.com\\\/rtb_official\\\/?utm_source=reasons.org&amp;ampampampamputm_medium=sm-icons\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/channel\\\/UCYn91p__adK3Vcml9_CY26Q?utm_source=reasons.org&amp;ampamputm_medium=sm-icons\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.tiktok.com\\\/@reasonstobelieve?utm_source=reasons.org&amp;ampampampamputm_medium=sm-icons\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/bd0fdf7d6925b1c2bff03327f8913f94\",\"name\":\"Guest Writer\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f640c816918e9d9680908236a4c8c5c297a257f72770d3f6c451c059c63b667e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f640c816918e9d9680908236a4c8c5c297a257f72770d3f6c451c059c63b667e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/f640c816918e9d9680908236a4c8c5c297a257f72770d3f6c451c059c63b667e?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Guest Writer\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/reasons.org\\\/author\\\/guest-writer\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory - Reasons to Believe","description":"A groundbreaking genetic study challenges 60 years of neo-Darwinism by revealing most 'silent' mutations harm fitness, urging a rethink in evolution and medical genetics.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory","og_description":"A groundbreaking genetic study challenges 60 years of neo-Darwinism by revealing most 'silent' mutations harm fitness, urging a rethink in evolution and medical genetics.","og_url":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory","og_site_name":"Reasons to Believe","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/RTBOfficial\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-09T13:00:00+00:00","og_image":[{"width":2560,"height":832,"url":"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Guest Writer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@rtb_official","twitter_site":"@rtb_official","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Guest Writer","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory"},"author":{"name":"Guest Writer","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#\/schema\/person\/bd0fdf7d6925b1c2bff03327f8913f94"},"headline":"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory","datePublished":"2023-03-09T13:00:00+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory"},"wordCount":1632,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg","keywords":["Genetic Code","genetic Research","Evolutionary Theory"],"articleSection":["Evolution","Life"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory","url":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory","name":"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory - Reasons to Believe","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg","datePublished":"2023-03-09T13:00:00+00:00","description":"A groundbreaking genetic study challenges 60 years of neo-Darwinism by revealing most 'silent' mutations harm fitness, urging a rethink in evolution and medical genetics.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/shutterstock_2189901805-scaled.jpg","width":2560,"height":832},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation\/evolution\/new-genetic-study-challenges-60-years-of-evolutionary-theory#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Creation","item":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/creation"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":3,"name":"Life","item":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/topics\/creation\/life"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":4,"name":"New Genetic Study Challenges 60 Years of Evolutionary Theory"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#website","url":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/","name":"Reasons to Believe","description":"","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#organization","name":"Reasons to Believe","url":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/RTB_minimal_swirl_logo.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2022\/05\/RTB_minimal_swirl_logo.png","width":365,"height":365,"caption":"Reasons to Believe"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/RTBOfficial\/","https:\/\/x.com\/rtb_official","https:\/\/www.instagram.com\/rtb_official\/?utm_source=reasons.org&amp;ampampampamputm_medium=sm-icons","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/channel\/UCYn91p__adK3Vcml9_CY26Q?utm_source=reasons.org&amp;ampamputm_medium=sm-icons","https:\/\/www.tiktok.com\/@reasonstobelieve?utm_source=reasons.org&amp;ampampampamputm_medium=sm-icons"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/#\/schema\/person\/bd0fdf7d6925b1c2bff03327f8913f94","name":"Guest Writer","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f640c816918e9d9680908236a4c8c5c297a257f72770d3f6c451c059c63b667e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f640c816918e9d9680908236a4c8c5c297a257f72770d3f6c451c059c63b667e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/f640c816918e9d9680908236a4c8c5c297a257f72770d3f6c451c059c63b667e?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Guest Writer"},"url":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/author\/guest-writer"}]}},"taxonomy_info":{"category":[{"value":63987,"label":"Evolution"},{"value":63990,"label":"Life"}],"post_tag":[{"value":70798,"label":"Genetic Code"},{"value":70783,"label":"genetic Research"},{"value":70948,"label":"Evolutionary Theory"}],"reading-level":[{"value":64149,"label":"Advanced (Deep Dive)"}]},"featured_image_src_large":["https:\/\/reasons-prod.storage.googleapis.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/shutterstock_2189901805-1024x333.jpg",1024,333,true],"author_info":{"display_name":"Guest Writer","author_link":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/author\/guest-writer"},"comment_info":0,"category_info":[{"term_id":63987,"name":"Evolution","slug":"evolution","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":63987,"taxonomy":"category","description":"The theory of evolution is one of the most debated topics in science-and-faith discussions. But what does the latest research reveal?\r\n\r\nFrom the origin of life to DNA\u2019s complexity, explore how science aligns with Scripture\u2014and why nature\u2019s elegant design points to an intentional Creator, not blind chance.","parent":63984,"count":387,"filter":"raw","term_order":"0","cat_ID":63987,"category_count":387,"category_description":"The theory of evolution is one of the most debated topics in science-and-faith discussions. But what does the latest research reveal?\r\n\r\nFrom the origin of life to DNA\u2019s complexity, explore how science aligns with Scripture\u2014and why nature\u2019s elegant design points to an intentional Creator, not blind chance.","cat_name":"Evolution","category_nicename":"evolution","category_parent":63984},{"term_id":63990,"name":"Life","slug":"life","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":63990,"taxonomy":"category","description":"Let\u2019s explore God\u2019s handiwork, from the tiny designs in DNA to the fascinating worlds of plants, animals, dinosaurs, and more. We\u2019ll help unravel the mysteries and marvels of living creatures that point to a loving Creator\u2014the one who made and sustains it all.","parent":63984,"count":1210,"filter":"raw","term_order":"0","cat_ID":63990,"category_count":1210,"category_description":"Let\u2019s explore God\u2019s handiwork, from the tiny designs in DNA to the fascinating worlds of plants, animals, dinosaurs, and more. We\u2019ll help unravel the mysteries and marvels of living creatures that point to a loving Creator\u2014the one who made and sustains it all.","cat_name":"Life","category_nicename":"life","category_parent":63984}],"tag_info":[{"term_id":70798,"name":"Genetic Code","slug":"genetic-code","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":70795,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":31,"filter":"raw","term_order":"0"},{"term_id":70783,"name":"genetic Research","slug":"genetic-research","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":70780,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":41,"filter":"raw","term_order":"0"},{"term_id":70948,"name":"Evolutionary Theory","slug":"evolutionary-theory","term_group":0,"term_taxonomy_id":70942,"taxonomy":"post_tag","description":"","parent":0,"count":13,"filter":"raw","term_order":"0"}],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/588"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=345738"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/345738\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/345792"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=345738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=345738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=345738"},{"taxonomy":"discipline","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/discipline?post=345738"},{"taxonomy":"reading-level","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/reasons.org\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/reading-level?post=345738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}