Here are 28 reasons why it is not _possible _for mutations to pproduce species evolution:
1 - NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another!
Read the above paragraph over a couple times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had permanent effects in offspring—then how could mutations result in worthwhile evolution?
"Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organism's central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?"—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, p. 102.
2 - ONLY HARM—The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not kill outright are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished.
This gradual buildup of harmful mutations in the genes is called genetic load.
"The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a 'load,' or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool. The term 'genetic load' was first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic chemicals."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.
3 - USUALLY ELIMINATE—Because of their intrinsic nature, mutations greatly weaken the organism; so much so that if that organism survives, its descendants will tend to die out.
The result is a weeding-out process. Contrary to the hopes of the neo-Darwinians, natural selection does not enhance the effects of the mutation. Natural selection eliminates mutations by killing off the organism bearing them!
"After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins, Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25.
"If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a dear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze."— *Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p. 174.
4 - MUTAGENS—It is a well-known fact that scientists have for decades been urging the removal of radiation hazards and mutagenic chemicals (scientists call them mutagens) because of the increasing damage mutations are doing to people, animals, and plants.
It is time that the evolutionists, who praise the value of mutations, admit very real facts. How can such terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the race—and produce by random action all the complex structures and actions of life?
If scientists really believed in mutations as the great improvers of the race, they would ask that more, not less, mutagenic radiations might be given to plant and animal life! But they well-know that mutations are extremely dan gerous. Who is that confirmed neo-Darwinist who is willing to let his own body be irradiated with X-rays for minutes at a time, so that his offspring might wonderfully improve?
"The most important actions that need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to future generations."— * Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load, " in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107.
5 - DANGEROUS ACCIDENTS—How often do accidents help you? What is the likelihood that the next car accident you have will make you feel better than you did before?
Because of their random nature and negative effects, mutations would destroy all life on earth, were it not for the fact that in nature they rarely occur.
"An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one's watch or one's radio set will seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]
Actually, a significant part of the grave danger in mutations is their very randomness! A mutation is a chance accident to the genes or chromosomes.
"We could still be sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
Referring to the harmful effects of mutations, *Bul lock concludes:
"Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization."—
*Helen Bullock, "Crusade to Unravel Life's Mystery, " The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13.
6 - INTERTWINED CATASTROPHE—A new reason why mutations are so insidious has only recently been discovered. Geneticists discovered the answer in the genes. Instead of a certain characteristic being controlled by a certain gene, it is now known that each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is affected by many genes! We have here a complicated interweaving of genetic-characteristic relationships never before imagined possible!
Touch such a delicate system with mutations and you produce interlocking havoc.
7 - ONLY RANDOM EFFECTS—So far in this chapter, we have tended to ignore the factor of random results. What if mutations were plentiful and always with positive results, but still random as they now are? They would still be useless.
Even assuming mutations could produce those complex structures called feathers, birds would have wings on their stomachs, where they could not use them, or the wings would be upside down, without lightweight feathers, and under- or oversized.
Most animals would have no eyes, some would have one, and those that had any eyes would have them under their armpits or on the soles of their feet.
The random effects of mutations would annihilate any value they might otherwise provide.
8 - ALL AFFECTED—Mutations tend to have a widespread effect on the genes.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole genetic system of an individual . . Every char acter of an organism is affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional integration of the genotype as a whole."—* Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
Each mutation takes its toll on large numbers—even all the genes, directly or indirectly; and since 99 percent of the mutations are harmful and appear in totally random areas, they could not possibly bring about the incredible life-forms we find all about us.
Since each altered characteristic requires the combined effort of many genes, it is obvious that many genes would have to be mutated in a GOOD way to accomplish anything worthwhile. But almost no mutations are ever helpful.
More generations of fruit flies have been experimented on for mutational effects than mankind could have lived for millions of years! This is due to the fact that a fruit fly produces "a new generation" in a few short hours; whereas a human generation requires 18-40 years, and researchers in many locations have been breeding fruit flies for over 90 years.
Thousands and thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated in the hope of producing worthwhile mutations. But only damage and death has resulted.
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration, breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."— *Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
9 - LIKE THROWING ROCKS—Trying to accomplish evolution with random, accidental, harmful mutations is like trying to improve a television set by throwing rocks at it (although I will admit that may be one of the best ways to improve the benefit you receive from your television set).
*H.J. Muller won a Nobel prize for his work in ge netics and mutations. In his time, he was considered a world leader in genetics research. Here is how he describes the problem:
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11(1955), p. 331.
10 - MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE—(*#3/9 Math on Mutations*) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.
Even assuming that all mutations were beneficial— in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations— all occurring at the same time in the same organism!
The odds of getting two mutations that are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he has not changed from one species to another.
More related mutations would be needed. Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21 zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1 with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Mil lions upon millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to transform one species into another.
But ALL those simultaneous mutations would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.
(By the way, you would need to produce all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly produce young. Otherwise it would be like mating a donkey and a horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)
"The mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organ-ism."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41 (1953), p. 103.
Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility, and that's it.
11 - TIME IS NO SOLUTION—But someone will say, "Well, it can be done—if given enough time." Evolutionists offer us 5 billion years for mutations to do the job of producing all the wonders of nature that you see about you. But 5 billion years is, in seconds, only 1 with 17 zeros (1 X 1017) after it. And the whole universe only contains 1 X 1080 atomic particles. So there is no possible way that all the universe and all time past could produce such odds as would be needed for the task! *Julian Huxley, the leading evolutionary spokesman of the mid-twentieth century, said it would take 103000 changes to produce just one horse by evolution. That is 1 with 3000 zeros after it! (Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46).
Evolution requires millions of beneficial mutations all working closely together to produce delicate living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all the rest. And all those mutations would have to be non-random and intelligently planned! In no other way could they accomplish the needed task.
But, leaving the fairyland of evolutionary theory, to the real world, which only has rare, random, and harmful mutations, we must admit that mutations simply cannot do the job.
And there is no other way that life-forms could invent and reinvent themselves by means of that mythical process called "evolution."
"A majority of mutations, both those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary disease and monstrosities. Such changes it would seem, can hardly serve as evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dob-zhansky, Genetics and the Origin of Species (1955), p. 73.
12 - GENE STABILITY—It is the very rarity of mutations that guarantees the stability of the genes. Because of that, the fossils of ancient plants and animals are able to look like those living today.
"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more." "Researchers estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000 years."—* World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.
"Living things are enormously diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation after generation."—*Edouard Kellenberger, "The Genetic Control of the Shape of a Virus," in Scientific American, December 1966, p. 32.
13 - AGAINST ALL LAW—After spending years studying mutations, * Michael Denton, an Australian research geneticist, finalized on the matter this way:
"If complex computer programs cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply to the genetic programs of living organisms.
"The fact that systems [such as advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, can not undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?"—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 342.
14 - SYNTROPY—This principle was mentioned in the chapter on Natural Selection; it belongs here also. *Albert Szent-Gyorgyi is a brilliant Hungarian scientist who has won two Nobel Prizes (1937 and 1955) for his research. In 1977, he developed a theory which he called syntropy. * Szent-Gyorgyi points out that it would be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it was already complete with all of its functions and they were all working perfectly or nearly so. This principle rules out the possibility of evolution arising by the accidental effects of natural selection or the chance results of mutations. It is an important point.
"In postulating his theory of syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of 'survival of the fittest' would generally select against any mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi 's Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337.
15 - MINOR CHANGES DAMAGE OFFSPRING THE MOST—With painstaking care, geneticists have studied mutations for decades. An interesting feature of these accidents in the genes, called mutations, deals a stunning blow to the hopes of neo-Darwinists. Here, in brief, is the problem:
(1) Most mutations have very small effects; some have larger ones. (2) Small mutations cannot accomplish the needed task, for they cannot produce evolutionary changes. Only major mutational changes, with wideranging effects in an organism, can possibly hope to effect the needed changes from one species to another.
And now for the new discovery: (3) It is only the minor mutational changes which harm one's descendants. The major ones kill the organism outright or rather quickly annihilate its offspring!
"One might think that mutants that cause only a minor impairment are unimportant, but this is not true for the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the long run as a major ones, and occur much more frequently, it follows that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958, p. 20.
"The probabilities that a mutation will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading. Mutations with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule the chances are better the smaller the effect."—*George Gaylord Simpson, " Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory andMethod in Geohistory andBiohistory, " Chapter 2; in *Max Hecht and *William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p. 80.
16 - WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN ONE GENERATION—Not even one major mutation, affecting a large number of organic factors, could accomplish the task of taking an organism across the species barrier. Hundreds of mutations—all positive ones,—and all working together would be needed to produce a new species. The reason: The formation of even one new species would have to be done all at once—in a single generation!
"Since Lamarck's theory [acquired characteristics] has been proved false, it is only of historical interest. Darwin's theory [natural selection] does not satisfactorily explain the origin and inheritance of variations . . deVries' theory [large mutations, or hopeful monsters"] has been shown to be weak because no single mutation or set of mutations has ever been so large that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of off-spring."—*MarkA. Hall and *Milton S. Lesser, Review Text in Biology, (1966), p. 363.
17 - INCONSEQUENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS—
A major problem here is that, on one hand, mutations are damaging and deadly; but on the other,—aside from the damage—they only directly change small features.
"Is it really certain, then, as the neo-Darwinists maintain, that the problem of evolution is a settled matter? I, personally, do not think so, and, along with a good many others, I must insist on raising some banal objections to the doctrine of neo-Darwinism . .
"The mutations which we know and which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of the pre-existing organs. In any case, they never produce anything really new or original in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for a new organ or the priming for a new function."—*Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution (1961), p. 79.
*Richard Goldschmidt was the geneticist who first proposed miraculous multimillion, beneficial mutations as the only possible cause of species crossover. (More on this later.) This is what he wrote about the inconsequential na ture of individual mutations:
"Such an assumption [that little mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations, produce a new species] is violently opposed by the majority of geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the subspe-cific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations."—*Richard Goldschmidt, in American Scientist (1952), p. 94.
Later in this chapter, we will briefly discuss *Gold-schmidt's "hopeful monster" theory, since it is based on mu-tational changes.
18 - TRAITS ARE TOTALLY INTERCONNECTED— Experienced geneticists are well-aware of the fact that the traits contained within the genes are closely interlocked with one another. That which affects one trait will affect many others. They work together. Because of this, all the traits, in changed form, would have to all be there together—instantly,—in order for a new species to form!
Here is how two scientists describe the problem: "Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules must fit together most precisely, as the cogwheels of a Swiss watch do. But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any one of the specific cogwheels in these chains is changed, then the whole system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axles. To get a better watch all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977), [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
19 - TOO MANY RELATED FACTORS—There are far too many factors associated with each trait for a single mutation—or even several to accomplish the needed task. Mathematical probabilities render mutational species changes impossible of attainment.
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.8 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence . . Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000 nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have been the product of a random occurrence; 'random mutations,' to use the evolutionist's favorite expression."— *L.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.
20 - REPRODUCTIVE CHANGES LOW—Here is an extremely IMPORTANT point: Mutational changes in the reproductive cells occur far more infrequently than in the cells throughout the rest of the body. Only mutational changes within the male or female reproductive cells could affect oncoming generations.
"The mutation rates for somatic cells are very much higher than the rates for gametic cells."—* "Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging Process, " in Science, August 23, 1963, p. 694.
21 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES INCREASING COMPLEX-ITY—The theorists have decreed that evolution, by its very nature, must move upward into ever-increasing complexity, better structural organization, and completeness. Indeed, this is a cardinal dictum of evolutionists. Evolutionists maintain that evolution can only move upward toward more involved life-forms,—and that it can never move backward into previously evolved life-forms.
But, in reality, mutations, by their very nature, tear down, disorganize, crumble, confuse, and destroy.
Here is how one scientist explains the problem:
"One should remember that an increase in complexity is what evolution is all about. It is not conceived as causing a change which continues to maintain the same level of complexity, nor does it mean a change which might bring about a decrease in complexity. Only an increase in complexity qualifies.
"Radiations from natural sources enter the body in a hit-or-miss fashion. That is, they are completely random in the dispersed fashion with which they strike. Chemical mutagens also behave in an indiscriminate manner in causing chemical change. It is hard to see how either can cause improvements. With either radiations or mutagens, it would be something like taking a rifle and shooting haphazardly into an automobile and expecting thereby to create a better performing vehicle, and one that shows an advance in the state-of-the-art for cars.
"The question is, then, can random sources of energy as represented by radiations or mutagenic chemi-
cals, upon reacting with the genes, cause body changes which would result in a new species?"—Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism (1986), p. 51.
22 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW INFORMATION—In order for a new organism to be formed by evolutionary change, new information banks must be emplaced.
It is something like using a more advanced computer program; a "card" of more complicated procedural instructions must be put into the central processing unit of that computer. But the haphazard, random results of mutations could never provide this new, structured information.
"If evolution is to occur . . living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or alteration of their stored information."—*George Gaylord Simpson, "The Non-prevalence of Humanoids, " in Science, 143, (1964), p. 772.
23 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW ORGANS—It is not enough for mutations to produce changes;—they must produce new organs! Billions of mutational factors would be required for the invention of one new organ of a new species, and this mutations cannot do.
"A fact that has been obvious for many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in existing characters . . No experiment has produced progeny that show entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new characters in organisms which mark the boundaries of the major steps in the evolutionary scale."—*H.G. Cannon, The Evolution of Living Things (1958), p. 87.
24 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES COMPLICATED NETWORKING—A relatively new field of scientific study is called "linkage, " "linkage interconnections, " or "networking." This is an attempt to analyze the network of interrelated factors in the body. I say, "an attempt," for there are millions of such linkages. Each structure or organ is related to another—and also to thousands of others. (A detailed study of this type of research will be found in Creation Research Society Quarterly, for March 1984, pp. 199-211. Ten diagrams and seven charts are included.)
Our concern here is that each mutation would damage a multi-link network. This is one of the reasons why mutations are always injurious to an organism.
The kidneys interconnect with the circulatory system, for they purify the blood. They also interconnect with the nervous system, the endocrine system, the digestive system, etc. But such are merely major systems. Far more is included. We are simply too fearfully and wonderfully made for random mutations to accomplish any good thing within our bodies.
25 - VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE MUTATIONS— "Visible mutations" are those genetic changes that are easily detectable, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. *Winchester explains: (1) For every visible mutation, there are 20 lethal ones which are invisible! (2) Even more frequent than the lethal mutations would be the ones that damage but do not kill.
"Lethal mutations outnumber visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones."—*A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th Edition (1977), p. 356.
26 - NEVER HIGHER VITALITY THAN PARENT—
Geneticists, who have spent a lifetime studying mutations, tell us that each mutation only weakens the organism. Never does the mutated offspring have more strength than the unmutated (or less mutated) parent.
"There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations."—*N. HerbertNilsson, Synthetische
Artbildung (Synthetic Speciation) (1953), p. 1157 [italics his].
27 - MUTATIONS ARE NOT PRODUCING SPECIES
CHANGE—Theory, theory, lots of theory, but it just isn't happening!
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."—* Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.
"It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations]."—* Richard B. Gold-schmdt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, "American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.
A "nascent organ" is one that is just coming into existence. None have ever been observed.
"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ."— *Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (1984), pp. 67-68.
28 - GENE UNIQUENESS FORBIDS SPECIES CHANGE— The very fact that each species is so different than the others—forbids the possibility that random mutations could change them into new species. There are million of factors which make each species different than all the others. The DNA code barrier that would have to be crossed is simply too immense.
"If life really depends on each gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come into being by chance mutations."—*Frank B. Salisbury, "Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene," Nature, October 25, 1969, p. 342.
3 - THE ONE "BENEFICIAL" MUTATION
SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA—Evolutionists point to sickle-cell anemia as the outstanding example of beneficial evolutionary change through mutation.
A long time ago, a mutation occurred in someone in Africa. As do all mutational changes, this one resulted in damage. In this instance, the shape of the red blood cells was changed, from its normal flattened shape, to a quarter-moon shape. Because it tended to cause serious anemia, instead of killing outright, sickle-cell anemia passed into the race and became a recessive factor.
The problem was that, although the blood of a person with sickle-cell anemia does not properly absorb food and oxygen,—that person, oddly enough, will be less likely to acquire malaria from the bite of an anopheles mosquito. As a result, the sickle-cell anemia factor has become widespread in Africa. This is the best example of a "beneficial" mutation that evolutionary scientists are able to offer us.
"Actually, only three evolutionists have ever given me an example of a beneficial mutation. It was the same example all three times: sickle-cell anemia. . Sickle-cell anemia is often given as an example of a favorable mutation, because people carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin in their red blood cells are resistant to malaria. But the price for this protection is high: 25 percent of the children of carriers will probably die of the anemia, and another 25 percent are subject to malaria.
"The gene will automatically be selected when the death rate from malaria is high, but evolutionists themselves admit that the short time advantages produce 'mischievous results' detrimental to long-term survival."—
Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 103, 104.
Actual statistics reveal that the death rate from malaria for normal people in certain parts of Africa is over 30 percent while only 25 percent of carriers of sickle-cell anemia are likely to contract it. But in return for the advantage, 25 percent of their children will die of this serious anemia.
These carriers have a 50-50 proportion of regular and sickle-cell red blood cells, but 25 percent of their children will have 100 percent sickle-cell RBCs, and will die as a result. The other 75 percent will also be carriers and have the 50-50 proportion of cells.
In sickle-cell anemia, one amino acid in a peptide of nine in a string is faulty. Valine is there instead of glutamic acid. That one change makes all the difference, changing regular hemoglobin into sickle-cell hemoglobin.
This outstanding example of a "beneficial mutant" not only damages those who have it, but in the process would normally eradicate itself. It is only the deaths caused by malaria that favor it.
"In regions where malaria is not an acute problem, the gene does tend to die out. In America, the incidence of sickle-cell genes among blacks may have started as high as 25 percent. Even allowing for a reduction to an estimated 15 percent by admixture with non-black individuals, the present incidence of only 9 percent shows that the gene is dwindling away. In all probability it will continue to do so. If Africa is freed of malaria, the gene will presumably dwindle there, too."—*Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 619.
DRUG-RESISTANT GERMS—What about strains of bacteria and viruses which are resistant to antibiotics and other modern drugs? You will frequently hear in the media that "new mutations" of germs are drug-resistant. This is not true.
We have here a situation much like the peppered moth, discussed early in the last chapter. Each bacteria and virus has its own gene pool, so it can produce a number of varieties. When a certain antibiotic is repeatedly given to people with tuberculosis, and those people do not take the drug long enough to kill the tubercle bacillus,—opportu-nity is given for drug-resistant strains of the bacillus to reproduce in great numbers while less-resistant strains are reduced in number. Only occasionally do mutated strains of germs occur, and when they do, they soon die out. More on this later in this chapter.
Was this article helpful?