ocean of neutral molecular change, imposed every now
and again when selection casts a stone on the waters of
The Neutral Model incorporates not only codon
redundancy, but vast amounts of ‘junk DNA’ as a source
of mutational genetic novelty which forms an inherent
assumption of the model. Negating these Neutral Theory
assumptions and premises are new discoveries in full codon
utility, multilayered embedded codes in and around genes,
and pervasive genome transcription and functionality. In
addition, extensive computational modelling of Neutral
Theory has also revealed that it is defunct as a viable working
evolutionary model, and would be even if the genome were
heavily composed of ‘junk’.
So not only has the Neo-Darwinian Model been disproved,
but the alternative Neutral Model has come up wanting
as well. The evolutionary response by some has been to
reject both evolutionary paradigms along with the obvious
conclusion that living systems were engineered by an
omnipotent Creator. Their alternative, called the ‘Extended
Evolutionary Synthesis’, is really nothing but a position of
blissful ignorance in hopes of discovering some yet unknown
evolutionary process in a variety of research areas that are,
in reality, only proving to be goldmines of opportunity
for creation scientists. Scientific discovery in the area of
molecular biology and genomics is steam rolling forward
and only revealing a picture of nearly infinite cellular and
1. Nei, M., Suzuki, Y. and Nozawa, M., The neutral theory of molecular evolution
in the genomic era, Annu. Rev. Genomics Hum. Genet. 11:265–289, 2010 |
2. Nei, M., Mutation-driven evolution, 1st edn, Oxford University Press, Oxford,
3. Tomkins, J. and Bergman, J., Evolutionary molecular genetic clocks—a
perpetual exercise in futility and failure, J. Creation 29: 25–35, 2015.
4. Kimura, M., The neutral theory of molecular evolution, Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge, UK, 1983.
5. Kimura, M., Recent development of the neutral theory viewed from the
wrightian tradition of theoretical population genetics, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci.
USA 88:5969–5973, 1991; p. 5969.
6. Gould, S.J., This view of life: through a lens darkly, Natural History, pp. 16–24,
7. Kimura, M., Evolutionary rate at the molecular level, Nature 217:624–626,
8. King, M.C. and Wilson, A.C., Evolution at two levels in humans and
chimpanzees, Science 188: 107–116, 1975.
9. King, J.L. and Jukes, T.H., Non-darwinian evolution, Science 164:788–798,
10. Nei, M., Selectionism and neutralism in molecular evolution, Mol. Biol. Evol. 22:
2318–2342, 2005 | doi: 10.1093/molbev/msi242.
11. Alvarez-Valin, F., Neutral theory; in: Pagel, M.D. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
Evolution, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2002.
12. Rupe, C. and Sanford, J., Using numerical simulation to better understand
fixation rates, and establishment of a new principle—Haldane’s ratchet; in:
Horstemeyer. M. (Ed.), Seventh International Conference on Creationism,
Creation Science Fellowship, Philadelphia, PA, 2013.
13. Herron, J.C. and Freeman, S., Evolutionary Analysis, Pearson, Essex, UK, 2013.
14. Brick, K. et al., Genetic recombination is directed away from functional genomic
elements in mice, Nature 485:642–645, 2012 | doi: 10.1038/nature11089.
15. Smagulova, F. et al., Genome-wide analysis reveals novel molecular features
of mouse recombination hotspots, Nature 472:375–378, 2011 | doi: 10.1038/
16. Lynch, M., The evolution of genetic networks by non-adaptive processes, Nat.
Rev. Genet. 8:803–813, 2007 | doi: 10.1038/nrg2192.
17. Zuckerkandl, E. and Pauling, L., Molecules as documents of evolutionary history,
J. Theor. Biol. 8:357–366, 1965.
18. Carter, R. W., More evidence for the reality of genetic entropy, J. Creation 28:
19. Behura, S.K. and Severson, D.W., Codon usage bias: Causative factors,
quantification methods and genome-wide patterns: With emphasis on insect
genomes, Biol. Rev. Camb. Philos. Soc. 88: 49–61, 2013 | doi: 10.1111/j.1469-
20. Dutta, C. and Paul, S., Microbial lifestyle and genome signatures, Curr.
Genomics 13:153–162, 2012 | doi: 10.2174/138920212799860698.
21. Plotkin, J. B. and Kudla, G., Synonymous but not the same: The causes and
consequences of codon bias, Nat Rev Genet 12: 32–42, 2011 | doi: 10.1038/
22. Ikemura, T., Codon usage and trna content in unicellular and multicellular
organisms, Mol. Biol. Evol. 2: 13–34, 1985.
23. Cannarozzi, G. et al., A role for codon order in translation dynamics,
Cell 141:355–367, 2010 | doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2010.02.036.
24. Tomkins, J., Extreme information: Biocomplexity of interlocking genome
languages, Creation Research Society Quarterly 51:187–201, 2015.
25. Chang, T.H. et al., An enhanced computational platform for investigating
the roles of regulatory rna and for identifying functional rna motifs, BMC
Bioinformatics 14 Suppl 2:S4, 2013 | doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-14-S2-S4.
26. Neph, S. et al., An expansive human regulatory lexicon encoded in transcription
factor footprints, Nature 489: 83–90, 2012 | doi: 10.1038/nature11212.
27. Stergachis, A.B. et al., Exonic transcription factor binding directs codon choice
and affects protein evolution, Science 342:1367–1372, 2013 | doi: 10.1126/
28. Weatheritt, R.J. and Babu, M.M., Evolution—the hidden codes that shape protein
evolution, Science 342:1325–1326, 2013 | doi: 10.1126/science.1248425.
29. O’Brien, E.P. et al., Understanding the influence of codon translation rates
on cotranslational protein folding, Acc. Chem. Res. 47:1536–1544, 2014 |
30. O’Brien, E.P. et al., Transient tertiary structure formation within the ribosome
exit port, J. Am. Chem. Soc. 132:16928–16937, 2010 | doi: 10.1021/ja106530y.
31. D’Onofrio, D.J. and Abel, D.L., Redundancy of the genetic code enables
translational pausing, Front. Genet. 5:140, 2014 | doi: 10.3389/fgene.2014.00140.
32. Britten, R.J., Graham, D.E, and Neufeld, B.R., Analysis of repeating DNA
sequences by reassociation, Methods Enzymol. 29:363–418, 1974.
33. Venter, J.C. et al., The sequence of the human genome, Science 291:1304–1351,
2001 | doi: 10.1126/science.1058040.
34. Lander, E.S. et al., Initial sequencing and analysis of the human genome, Nature 409:
860–921, 2001 | doi: 10.1038/35057062.
35. Graur, D., Judge starling—The Origin of the Term “Junk DNA”: A Historical
Whodunnit, tiny.cc/07p6ny, Accessed 27 June 2013.
36. Dunham, I. et al., An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human
genome, Nature 489: 57–74, 2012 | doi: 10.1038/nature11247.
37. Djebali, S. et al., Landscape of transcription in human cells, Nature 489:101–108,
2012 | doi: 10.1038/nature11233.
38. Derrien, T. et al., The gencode v7 catalog of human long noncoding rnas:
Analysis of their gene structure, evolution, and expression, Genome Res. 22:
1775–1789, 2012 | doi: 10.1101/gr.132159.111.
39. Hangauer, M.J., Vaughn, I.W., and McManus, M. T., Pervasive transcription
of the human genome produces thousands of previously unidentified long
intergenic noncoding rnas, PLoS Genet. 9:e1003569, 2013 | doi: 10.1371/journal.
40. Iyer, M.K. et al., The landscape of long noncoding rnas in the human
transcriptome, Nat. Genet. 47:199–208, 2015 | doi: 10.1038/ng.3192.
41. Amaral, P.P. et al., The eukaryotic genome as an rna machine, Science 319:
1787–1789, 2008 | doi: 10.1126/science.1155472.