In its March 2003 edition the Turkish magazine Bilim ve Teknik (Science and Technique) carried a report headed “Haploids Are Superior, But…” The report concerned an article titled “An Evolutionary Advantage of Haploidity in Large Yeast Populations,” which had appeared in the January 24, 2003, edition of Science magazine. Based upon an experiment on brewer’s yeast, the story contained speculation regarding the so-called evolutionary advantages of haploidity and diploidity. Yet that experiment is not evidence of evolution. The evolutionist claims put forward stem from a subjective interpretation of the results obtained from the experiment.
Organisms are described by the names haploid, diploid, triploid, tetraploid etc., according to the number of chromosome sets they possess. For instance, human beings possess two sets of chromosomes, one from the mother and one from the father, and are therefore diploids. Living things with only one set are known as haploids.
A researcher from Wake Forest University by the name of Clifford Zeyl states in the article published in Science magazine that he has studied brewer’s yeast (Saccharomyces cerevisiae), which can multiply as a haploid or a diploid, in both large and small populations. Zeyl studied 2,000 generations of brewer’s yeast over two days and examined the resistance of five small and five large populations in an environment of liquid dextrose. As a result, he states that small haploid populations exhibit greater resistance than diploids, by a ratio of 0.802:0.557. Large haploid populations adapt more quickly than large diploid populations, he explains, although no such significant difference exists in small populations.
Zeyl assumes that the large haploid populations come to be more resistant to the dextrose-based environment by means of nutrition restriction with “adaptive mutations” in the dextrose environment. He even uses the term “evolution experiment” in his paper about the experiment. Science magazine repeats this error by saying that the researchers had been able to measure “evolutionary progress” in the experiment.
We first need to make it clear that the concept of “adaptive mutation” employed by evolutionists is an erroneous definition. Science and thus Bilim ve Teknik magazine gives the impression that the brewer’s yeast in the experiment becomes more resistant thanks to adaptive mutations. According to evolutionists, the concept of adaptive mutation is an expression of the changes the organism is supposed to bring about in its own DNA in order to adapt to its environment. However, examination of those situations they equate with adaptive mutations reveals that the concept is a deceptive one. For instance, evolutionists maintain that the immunity which bacteria gradually develop to antibiotics and insects to the poison DDT comes about as a result of adaptive mutations. The fact is, however, that during the period when they produce this resistance, neither bacteria nor insects acquire any genetic features that they did not possess before. Bacteria and insects do possess a genetic variety which leads to variations. The variations of some genes exhibit a resistance to antibiotics which others lack. When an antibiotic is thus applied to a colony of bacteria, those bacteria that do not exhibit immunity to the antibiotic die, and those that do survive. Over time, the number of bacteria possessing that resistance increases, and eventually the colony comes to consist only of that variety. In other words, there is no question of new information being added to the bacteria’s DNA. Antibiotic resistance is being distorted and portrayed as evidence of evolution, and it is thus intended that communities with inadequate knowledge of the subject will thus be taken in. There is an attempt to give the impression that evolution is continuing at all times. The truth is, however, that bacteria possessed this resistance even before antibiotics had been developed. Despite being an evolutionist magazine, Scientific American magazine carried the following confession in its March 1998 edition:
Many bacteria possessed resistance genes even before commercial antibiotics came into use. Scientists do not know exactly why these genes evolved and were maintained. (Stuart B. Levy, "The Challange of Antibiotic Resistance”, Scientific American, March 1998, p. 35)
The position is exactly the same with brewer’s yeast. The large populations of haploid brewer’s yeast whose resistance is stated to have increased in Zeyl’s experiment are exhibiting characteristics, which already existed in their variations. No new genetic characteristics have emerged. For that reason, referring to these changes as “evolution” is nothing more than sleight of hand, because an increase in brewer’s yeast’s resistance does not turn it into another living thing. Since the theory of evolution accepts that living things with complex structures evolved from single-cell beings, then it also needs to explain how a single-cell bacterium or brewer’s yeast can turn into a multi-celled complex living thing with a variety of systems (nervous system, circulatory system, digestive system etc.).
The fact is that there is not one example of random mutations, on which the theory of evolution depends, ever turning organisms into more complex living things by adding new genetic information to them. The effects of mutations that influence morphology are always harmful. The mutation experiments of fruit flies, for instance, have always resulted in deformed or still-born flies.
All this demonstrates that there can be no question of the “evolution” of brewer’s yeast. These things are nothing more than the ways evolutionists influence those sections of the community who lack sufficient knowledge of the subject. Science magazine is distorting the rise in variations’ resistance and portraying it as “evolution,” and is engaging in Darwinist propaganda.
Information about Zeyl’s experiment is provided at the beginning of the Bilim ve Teknik article, and there is speculation about the so-called evolutionary advantages of haploidity and diploidity. Mention is made here of the two sets of chromosomes possessed by diploids, and it is suggested that one of these might serve supplementary purposes, for which reason diploidity may possess an evolutionary advantage over haploidity. The Science author expresses this speculation in these terms: “The fact that human beings are diploids brings to mind the fact that this might have meant an evolutionary advantage of haploidity. The classical approaches to the superiority of diploids over haploids are built on the assumed advantages of a spare set of genes. Indeed, if mutations arising in the genome happen to damage one of the functioning genes, then the other can immediately take over.”
This is mere speculation, and there is no evidence for it at all. There is no evidence here that might be evidence for the theory of evolution. Looking at a structure which happens to possess a spare and interpreting the advantages this might bring with it in terms of evolution does not explain the origin of that structure. Claiming that “Human beings have two eyes for instance, and if one goes blind the other can still see, so this is an evolutionary advantage” does not explain how an organ such as the eye could possibly have evolved in the first place.
Diploidity remains a dark secret for the theory of evolution. That is inevitable, since the arrangements for a human being to take one set of chromosomes from his mother and another from his father indicate a design which cannot be explained by evolution. Since all the cells in our bodies bear two sets of chromosomes then the sperm and ovum cells, who job is to pass genetic information on to the next generation possess but one chromosome set each. It is impossible for this situation to have come about by chance and to have been chosen by natural selection.
The diploidity which Science seeks to explain with evolution actually represents an insoluble problem for the theory of evolution. The evolutionist speculation about Zeyl’s experiment in the magazine is nothing but prejudiced interpretations with no scientific foundation. We advise Science and also Bilim ve Teknik to face the scientific facts and put an end to its “adaptive mutation” error.
Science Magazine’s Spare Chromosome Set Error