Natural selection comes in two forms, positive and negative. Positive selection is supposed to improve species, but Dr Rob gives a clear example where bad mutations are amplified. Negative selection is supposed to keep species from degrading, but Dr Rob uses the same example to show how it occurs too late. Based on an article from Creation.com.

Notes and links:

• Original Article: creation.com/en/articles/two-forms-natural-selection
• Dr Rob’s bio: creation.com/en/people/dr-robert-carter
• Main Citation: Neville, M.D.C. et al., Sperm sequencing reveals extensive positive selection in the male germline, Nature 2025 | DOI:s41586-025-09448-3 Link: pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12611758
• Edwards, C.J. et al., Ancient hybridization and an Irish origin for the modern polar bear matriline, Curr. Biol. 21(15):1251–1258, 2011.

Scientist throw around words and phrases that are sometimes hard to understand. This is not one of them. Genetic drift is an easy concept. Dr Rob brings up the example drift among of human mitochondria, perhaps the most extreme form anyone has ever seen. And, since natural selection is generally weak, genetic drift overwhelms selection at critical junctures during development. This has profound implications for the creation-evolution debate, but first, the explanation…

Source paper under discussion: Árnadóttir et al. 2024, The rate and nature of mitochondrial DNA mutations in human pedigrees, Cell 187(15):3904-3910.

Fig 1: Mutant mitochondrial frequencies in child (y) vs mother (x), from the supporting data of the paper above.

Fig 2: Histogram of frequency changes from mother to child, same source as above.

Fig 3: Histogram data for each frequency bin in the mother (legend) vs child (x). Same source as above.

One woman is the ancestress of all living people. They call her Eve. Is she the Eve of the Bible? How long ago did she live? Join Dr Carter as he explains how scientists struggle to assign a date to Eve. It may come as a surprise, but the ‘date’ is based on questionable assumptions and debatable philosophy. All we can know is that the mutation rate is quite high and the mutation removal rate is quite low. Thus, science tells us that Eve lived not many thousands of years ago.

Note and links:

• Carter, 2025, When did Eve live? creation.com, 18 Sep 2025.
• Carter, 2025, The continuing saga of Mitochondrial Eve, bibicalgenetics.com.
• Stern-Cardinale, 2025, I BLUNDERED! A Response to Dr. Rob Carter (he agrees with me), youtube.com.
• Cann et al., 1987, Mitochondrial DNA and human evolution, Nature 325:31–36. [I accidentally said “1981”]
• Carter, 2007, Mitochondrial diversity within the modern human population, Nucleic Acids Res 35(9):3039–45.
• Carter et al., 2008, The “Eve” mitochondrial consensus sequence, Proc 6th ICC, pp. 111–116.
• Bandelt et al., 2014, The case for the continuing use of the revised Cambridge Reference Sequence (rCRS) and the standardization of notation in human mitochondrial DNA studies, J Hum Genet 59(2):66–77.
• Gibbons, 1998, Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279(5347):28–29.
• Wieland, 1998, A shrinking date for Eve, J Creation 12(1):1–3.
• Árnadóttir et al., 2014, The rate and nature of mitochondrial DNA mutations in human pedigrees, Cell 187(15):3904-3918.e8.
• Carter, 2019, Patriarchal drive in the early post-Flood population, J Creation 33(1):110–118.
• Carter, R., Genealogical vs phylogenetic mutation rates: answering a challenge, 9th ICC:68–180.
• More references can be found in the original article on creation.com.