Study Shows Proteins Cannot Evolve | The Institute for Creation Research

Study Shows Proteins Cannot Evolve

Researchers just announced the systematic laboratory induced mutation of successive amino acids over the entire sequence of a simple bacterial protein.1 The results showed how even the simplest of life's proteins have irreducibly complex chemical structures. The research also showed how random evolutionary processes that are ascribed to mutations are unable to propel evolution.

DNA holds the coded information that cells use to produce proteins, which are ordered chains of amino acids. Three successive nucleotide bases of DNA code for a single amino acid of a protein. Publishing in Nature, researchers successively changed the DNA code of an entire bacterial gene to mutate every amino acid of an 83-amino-acid protein. They then tested the ability of each mutant protein version to interact with its biological target in the cell.

What they proved was that proteins have a variety of specific regions that are highly sensitive to mutation—meaning that changes in these amino acids are not tolerated. Instead, they destroy protein function and negate evolution. These results support the prior research of Douglass Axe, a famous Cambridge protein biochemist who has also mutated large segments of bacterial proteins and is a strong critic of protein evolution and defender of intelligent design principles.2,3

In the simple bacterial protein they tested, 20 out of the 83 amino acids were off-limits to so-called random mutational evolutionary processes, since each of these single amino acid changes disabled protein function. Many of these mutation-resistant amino acid positions were in key sectors of the protein that interact with its "ligand, or chemical binding partner. Unfortunately for evolutionary concepts, these sectors are exactly where nature would need mutations to occur in order for it to construct new cellular interactions that might contribute to a new, selectable trait.

While the other 63 amino acids in the protein could be changed independently of each other (successively) without completely destroying the protein's function, their changes were limited to only a few of the possible 19 other amino acids with which they shared similar chemistries. This is because many amino acid changes, even outside the most critical sectors, still alter the overall 3-dimensional properties of the protein in negative, but not completely disabling, ways. Thus, even outside the non-negotiable sectors of the protein, optimal function was often hindered by just single amino-acid mutations—a finding described over 10 years ago by Douglass Axe.2

Data from similar, but less extensive, studies prior to this one show that random mutations in even the simplest of bacterial proteins have impossible hurdles to overcome if they are to create new function, even if it only happens one amino acid at a time. It also showed how key sectors of proteins are so tightly designed that they tolerate virtually no change whatsoever.

Imagine if this sort of experiment was done in more complex proteins that are hundreds of amino acids in length, or protein complexes that also include metal ions, carbohydrates, and ribo-nucleotides integrated into their structures.

Once again, the details of molecular biology in even a seemingly simple bacterial protein, point towards the creative hand of God.

References

  1. McLaughlin, R. N. et al. The Spatial Architecture of Protein Function and Adaptation. Nature. Published online before print, October 7, 2012.
  2. Axe, D. 2000. Extreme functional sensitivity to conservative amino acid changes on enzyme exteriors. Journal of Molecular Biology. 301 (3): 585-595.
  3. Axe, D. 2004. Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds. Journal of Molecular Biology. 341:1295-1315

* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research and received his Ph.D. in Genetics from Clemson University.

Article posted on November 9, 2012.

The Latest
NEWS
Surprisingly Thicker Whopper Sand Best Explained by the Flood’s...
Recently, an update on the Whopper Sand in the Gulf of America (Mexico) was published in the oil field trade magazine, AAPG Explorer.1 New...

NEWS
Stolen Chloroplasts Steal the Show
Amazing tiny chloroplasts found within equally incredible plant cells continue to reveal the detailed workmanship of the Creator who created plants...

NEWS
May 2026 Wallpaper
"that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God."  (Colossians...

NEWS
Reptile Evolution Ideas Are Challenged—Again
A small fossil reptile with strange and intricate skin outgrowths has been discovered that is forcing evolutionists to once again reexamine their understanding...

ACTS & FACTS
Creation Kids: Stegosaurus
Hi, kids! We created a special Acts & Facts just for you! Have fun doing the activities while learning about the wonderful world God...

ACTS & FACTS
Adaptive Trait Variation Conferred by Engineered Genetic Diversity
Global environments are highly diverse and dynamic, offering many changes and adaptive challenges to creatures. However, DNA sequence variability engineered...

ACTS & FACTS
Canyonlands National Park: A Bird's-Eye View
Certain overlooks at Canyonlands National Park in eastern Utah make you wish you could soar overhead to see and explore more crannies and canyons. Visitors...

ACTS & FACTS
Criticizing a Perfectly Engineered Eye: Evolutionists Humiliate...
Updated and modified from Guliuzza, R. J. 2016. Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionists Can’t See Eye Design. Acts & Facts. 45 (10): 16–18. Robert...

ACTS & FACTS
Casting Out Doubts: The Fruits of ICR Research
Do you remember the first time that you read about Uzzah and the Ark of the Covenant (2 Samuel 6)? I read it as a young person and remember feeling...

ACTS & FACTS
Seeing Eye-to-Eye
Like all biological structures, explaining the vertebrate eye—or any eye for that matter—is a challenge to neo-Darwinism (modern synthesis)....