Debunking Evolution Clip: Mutations Are Bad

So, mutations are always bad? Yeah. Look at what it says. Some mutations, such as those that cause genetic diseases, may be lethal.

Other mutations may lower fitness by decreasing an individual's ability to survive and reproduce.

Still, other mutations may improve an individual's ability to survive and reproduce. It looks like they agree that mutations are bad, but then why do they say some may improve an individual?

They give you an example right here.

Over the past 20 years, mutations in the mosquito genome have made many African mosquitoes resistant to the chemical pesticides once used to control them.

Okay, so it looks like the mosquitoes are better off because of mutation.

Yes, but what they don't tell you is that resistance actually came from a loss of information in the mosquito's genetic code.

The mosquito's ability to control its enzyme production is now messed up, and one of the strange side effects of too many enzymes is increased pesticide resistance.

However, normal mosquitoes without the disease are much healthier in the wild where there is no pesticide.

So it was a loss of information, but it was a benefit for those mosquitoes, right?

Well, they only benefit by being more resistant to the pesticide. The point is, by losing information, they lost control of an enzyme's production.

Now evolution needs to explain gains of information over time. And the same goes for other examples they give, like bacteria becoming more resistant, bone density, humans becoming more resistant to HIV.

But if a population of creatures continues to lose information, could it be deadly for them?

Bingo! But here's the real problem. People count on that loss of information from mutations to create the genetic blueprint for every living creature on Earth out of nothing.