But not once did It happen In (set. the multiplied millions of mutations induced by countless irradiation» did not in ana Instanca «wen improve the fruit fly species., much lew change it Into another on«) AH thst was accomplished was the production o1 such miserable creatures tt you te« on these two pogas. cew raw hiva bean as embittered as have conscientious geneti-clsts who have dedicated their lives to fruit fly resaarch, —tor they saw clearly what few cctanrists would admit—lhat evolution is Impossible
0CUTB CR05$mNLi5S Cltf
est amount will ruin the code and the organism will be greatly weakened.
It is like tossing a stone into the delicate gears of a high-quality machine. Even the simplest organism, with the smallest amount of DNA as its inherent coding, cannot cope successfully with mutations.
DISPROVED BY FOSSIL EVIDENCE—Neo-Darwinists theorized that evolution occurred by many little changes in the genes that gradually changed one species into something ever so slightly different, and then that species changed into something slightly different, and on and on,—until after many transitional species had lived and died, another of the species we have today came into existence.
But there is no evidence in the fossil record of all those transitional species that mutations are supposed to have very gradually produced! The fossil record disproves the mutation theory. (See chapter 12, Fossils and Strata.)
"In rapid evolutionary changes in animal lines the process may have been a typically neo-Darwinian one of the accumulation of numerous small adaptive mutations, but an accumulation at an unusually rapid rate. Unfortunately there is in general little evidence on this point in the fossil record, for intermediate evolutionary forms representative of this phenomenon are extremely rare. 'Links' are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that many 'links' will continue to be missing."—*A.S. Romer, chapter in Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution (1963), p. 114.
SEARCHING FOR A WAY—It seems that there is no causal agency for evolution, now that mutations have been shown to be impossible as a means by which it could occur.
First, *Charles Darwin's theory that evolution resulted from natural selection had to be abandoned. By the early 20th century, it was obvious that scientific evi dence did not exist for species change by natural selection. But, in those first decades of the century, the new science of mutation research had begun. So upon the ashes of the theory known as "Darwinism," arose "neo-Dar-winism"—which proclaimed that evolutionary change from one kind to another was accomplished through mutations, with later refinements effected by natural selection. But, within a few decades of mutation research on millions of generations of fruit flies, competent geneticists began abandoning it.
Publicly, most evolutionary scientists call themselves neo-Darwinists, but privately they are in a quandary. The evidence that you are reading in this and the previous chapter (on natural selection), which so thoroughly destroys the basis for evolution, is already known to a majority of confirmed evolutionists.
The future indeed looks bleak for their theory, but they continue to make a brave front; and, through various national organizations, they continue to demand that evolution alone be taught in public schools and accredited colleges and universities.
(Clarification: even though a majority of evolutionary scientists today lean toward saltation [discussed below], yet it too is based on mutations. Therefore they can all be called "neo-Darwinists.")
But some have come up with alternate suggestions that border on the ridiculous:
Was this article helpful?