Table of Contents

Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2

Chapter 14

"The evolution of life on Earth is a product of random events, chance mutations, and individually unlikely steps." *Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection (1973), p. 43.

"My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed. At least I should hardly be accused of having started from any preconceived anti-evolutionary standpoint." *H. Nilsson, Synthetic Speciation, (1953), p. 31.

"Just as pre-Darwinian biology was carried out by people whose faith was in the Creator and His plan, post-Darwinian biology is being carried out by people whose faith is in, almost, the deity of Darwin. They've seen their task as to elaborate his theory and to fill the gaps in it, to fill the trunk and twigs of the tree. But it seems to me that the theoretical framework has very little impact on the actual progress of the work in biological research. In a way some aspects of Darwinism and of neo-Darwinism. seem to me to have held back the progress of science." *Colin Patterson, The Listener. [Senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.]

"We still do not know the mechanics of evolution in spite of the over-confident claims in some quarters, nor are we likely to make further progress in this by the classical methods of paleontology or biology." *Errol White, Proceedings of the Ginnean Society, London 177:8 (1966).


Mutations rank equally with fossils and natural selection as the three most important aspects of life evolution. Fossil evidence in the sedimentary rock strata is supposed to provide evidence that species evolution has occurred in the past, and natural selection and mutations are the only means (mechanisms) by which it could occur.

In the chapter on Fossils we learned that there is simply no evidence that evolution of life forms has ever occurred in the past. In the chapter on Natural Selection we learned that the accidental gene reshufflings (which evolutionists call "natural selection") can indeed produce changes within species, but are totally incapable of producing different species.

The study of mutations is crucial it is all that the evolutionists have left! If mutations cannot produce evolution, then nothing can.

In this chapter you will learn that, far from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon thereafter. Not only is it impassible for mutations to cause the evolutionary process,they weaken or terminate the life process! The reason we all fear X-rays is because they are a powerful means of producing mutations that bring damage and death.

THE LAST HOPE. It is well known among many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur, mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the evolutionists today.

"It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work upon." *Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970), p. 103.

"The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution." *T. Dobzhansky, in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.

 But, at the same time, unable to prove evolution by mutations, they declare they need more time to study the matter:

"The complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given." *Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modem Synthesis (1940), pp. 183 and 205.

 As you will learn in this chapter, this is a marvelous understatement. * Dowdeswell expresses great hopes for evolutionary proof through further mutational analysis:

"One of the great merits of the present neo-Darwinian theory is that, unlike any of its predecessors, it provides a workable explanation of evolution susceptible of scientific test. From this brief account it will be clear that experimental studies are still in their infancy; no doubt great advances will be made in the next few decades." * W.H. Dowdeswell, The Mechanism of Evolution (1967), p. 115.

 But elsewhere he admits:

"Thus we know virtually nothing of the way in which hormone systems have evolved in plants and animals, and it is extremely difficult to picture the various transitional phases through which they must have passed." *Op. cit., p. 53.

This is no little matter. Without natural selection and/or mutations, evolution simply cannot work. In the previous chapter, we explained in detail that natural selection produces no evolutionary changes, since it only results in changes within each kind or true species of plant and animal.

Mutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information.

Here are some basic hurdles that scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must be beneficialand consistently so. (3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism.

 NEO-DARWINISM. When *Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he based evolutionary transitions on natural selection. In his book, he gave many examples of this, but all his examples were merely changes within the species.

Since then, scientists have diligently searched for examplespast or presentof natural selection changes beyond that of basic plant and animal types, but without success. For example, they cite several different horsesfrom miniatures to large work horses to zebras,but all are still horses.

So modern evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neo-Darwinism. This is the revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not natural selection alone) which have produced all life forms on Planet Earth.

"Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations." *M. Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.

Neo-Darwinists speculate that mutations accomplished all cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined them. This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are positive and purposive.

 For additional information see quotation supplement, "1- What the Public is Told, " in the appendix.

 1 Four Special Qualities

 In reality, mutations have four special qualities that are ruinous to the hopes of evolutionists:

(1) RARE EFFECTS. Mutations are very rare. This point is not a guess but an educated fact, observed by experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of mutational evolution to oblivion.

"It is probably fair to estimate the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation." *Francisco J. Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology, " in Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.

Mutations are simply too rare to have produced all the necessary traits of even one life form, much less all the creatures that swarm on the earth.

Evolution requires millions upon millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great rarity.

"Although mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare event." *F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution, Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.

 (2) RANDOM EFFECTS. Mutations are always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been observed in actual experimentation with mutations.

"It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next." *C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life (1962), p. 98.

In an indirect way of saying it, *Eden declares that the factor of randomness in mutations ruins their usefulness as a means of evolution.

"It is our contention that if 'random' is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural lawsphysical, physico-chemical and biological." *Murray Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as Scientific Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution (1967), p. 109.

Mutations are random, wild events which are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is s chance occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations.

Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.

 (3) NOT HELPFUL. Evolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.

"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences." *H.J. Mullet, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

At this point, you might ask, "How can we be certain of such facts about mutations if they are so rare?" That is a good question.

The answer is this: Although mutations only occur with extreme infrequence in nature, in the laboratory we can produce them at will. The usual method is radiation, but certain chemicals can accomplish it also. A sufficient amount of x-rays applied to the genes of the germ cells of an organism will produce mutations in its offspring. As a result, research geneticists have had the opportunity to study the effects of hundreds of thousands of mutations.

 (4) HARMFUL EFFECTS. Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

As mentioned earlier, scientists turned to neoDarwinism in the hope that it could do that which Darwinism could not do. The man more responsible than any other for getting scientists on the Neo-Darwin bandwagon was *Julian Huxley. But in his writings, even he knew he was on thin ice:

"A proportion of favorable mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the machinery slightly out of gear." *Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 41.

Elsewhere in the same book, he admitted this:

"One would expect that any interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the genetic constitution would result in damage. And, in fact, this is so: the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the organism." *Julian Huxley, Op, cit., p. 37.

So there you have it. four special facts about mutations that demolish any possibility that they could mutate even one species into another, much less produce all the species In the world.

Mutations are rare, random, almost never an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and open fatal to the organism or its offspring.

BASIS OF EVOLUTION. Modern evolutionary theory, from the mid-twentieth century onward, is based on the idea that mutations plus natural selection, plus time can produce most wonderful changes in all living creatures and have been responsible for all the astounding faculties and complicated organs that we see in plants and animals. Since DNA in the cell is the blueprint of the form that life will take, it does at first seem reasonable to assume that if the blueprint could be changed, the life form might greatly improve.

 WHAT MUTATIONS ARE LIKE. Tossing a single mutation into a living organism is like a speeding automobile that has just collided with a tree. Accidents can be dangerous, and mutations are always both.



Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists explain in their textbooks that it is mutations which have provided us with the millions of beneficial fractures in every species in the world. All that is needed is time and lots of random changes in the DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life forms will emerge.

Evolutionists also tell us that mutations will wonderfully adapt to our environmental needs. 'Carl Sagan, a leading science and science fiction writer, says that we have no creatures that move about on wheels on Planet Earth only because it is too bumpy!

"We can very well imagine another planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in

which wheeled organisms are abundant." *Carl Sagan, The Cosmic Connection, p. 42.

Sagan's idea of people sprouting wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground, is about as humorous as lava fields which are generally smooth and level.

We have already mentioned four facts about mutations: (1) They are extremely rare. (2) They are only random in what they do. (3) They are almost never beneficial. (4) Most of the time they are harmful or fatal. But now the situation gets worse.


Here are 28 reasons why it is not possible for mutations to produce 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) that was a permanent one, 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 offspringthen 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 Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, p. 102.

 2 - ONLY HARM. The problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not outright kill, 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 build-up of harmful mutations in the genes is called genetic load.

"The large majority of mutations, however, are harmful a 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 clear 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. " *Heibert 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 they are doing to people, animals, and plants. How then can such terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the raceand 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 dangerous. 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. The random nature of mutations and their negative effects 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. 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?

"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 smoothly-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, * Bullock concludes:

"Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization." *Helen Bullock, "Crusade to Unravel Life's Sweet 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.

 For additional information see quotation supplement, " 2 - Mutations are Very Harmful, " in the appendix.

7 - ONLY RANDOM. So far in this chapter, we have tended to ignore the factor of randomness. What if, (1) instead of few natural mutations there were LOTS of them, and (2) instead being always weakening or deadly, they were ALWAYS extremely beneficial,but they still were as random in their effects as they now are.

Even assuming mutations could produce those complex structures called feathers, birds would have wings on their stomachswhere they could not use them, or the wings would be upside down, without light-weight feathers, and under- or oversize.

Most animals would have no eyes, some would have one, and those that had any eyes would have them in strange places, such as under their arm-pits or on the soles of their feet.

The very randomness of mutations alone, 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."

"This universal interaction has been described, in deliberately exaggerated form, in this statement: Every character 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].

Well, that settles the whole matter. Evolution by mutation is totally impossible. Every mutation takes its toll on 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 mutatedin a good wayto 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 80 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." *T. 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 genetics 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.D. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11 (1955), p. 331.



10- MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE. Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA molecule.

 Buteven assuming that all mutations were beneficialin order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small way, it would be necessary to have a SERIES of closely related and interlocking mutations, not just oneall 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 honey bee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honey bee; 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. Millions upon millions 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.

"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 arid viability of the affected organism." *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.

For additional information see quotation supplement, " 3 - Math on Mutations," in the appendix.

11 - TIME NO SOLUTION. But someone will say, "Well, it can be doneif given enough time. " Evolutionists offer us 5 billion years for mutations to do the job. 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 1 x 1030001 And this is the estimate of the odds that "Julian Huxley says it would take to produce just one horse by evolution: 1 with 3,000 zeros after it!

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 we come back to the real world which only has random, harmful mutations. 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. Dobzhansky, 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 just 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, this is how 'Michael Denton, an Australian research geneticist, finalized on the matter:

"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, cannot 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. The majority of his concept is not acceptable, for it would make a god out of nature, but one aspect is worth our consideration. 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 Creationismthe 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. This difficulty is summed up by Szent-Gyorgyi in the following quote:

" ' "Herring gulls" have a red patch on their beak. This red patch has an important meaning, for the gull feeds its babies by going out fishing and swallowing the fish it has caught. Then, on coming home, the hungry baby gull knocks at the red spot. This elicits a reflex of regurgitation in mama, and the baby takes the fish from her gullet. All this may sound very simple, but it involves a whole series of most complicated chain reactions with a horribly complex underlying nervous mechanism of the knocking baby and that of the regurgitating mother. All this had to be developed simultaneously, which, as a random mutation, has the probability of zero. I am unable to approach this problem without supposing an innate "drive" in living matter to perfect itself.' *Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi's Theory of Syntropy, " in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337 /quoting 'Albert Szent-Gyrargyi, "The Living State: With Remarks on Cancer" (1972)).

 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 wide-ranging 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 that harm one's descendents. The major ones kill the organism outright, or rather quickly annihilate his 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 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 and Method in Geohistory and Biohistory," Chapter 2, in *Max A. 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 working together would have to do it. The reason: the formation of even one new species would have to be done all at oncein 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. . De Vries' theory [large mutations] 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 offspring." *Mark A. Hall and *Milton S Lesser, Review Text in Biology, (1968), 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 damagethe changes which they actually produce are very inconsequential:

"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 frying 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 . .

"No, decidedly, I cannot make myself think that these 'slips' of heredity have been able, even with the cooperation of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time in which evolution works on life, to build the entire world, with its structural prodigality and refinements, its astounding 'adaptations,' . . I cannot persuade myself to think that the eye, the ear, the human brain have been formed in this way; . . I discern nothing that gives me the right to conceive the profound structural alterations, the fantastic metamorphoses that we have to imagine in evolutionary history when we think of the transition from invertebrates to vertebrates, from fish to batrachians, from batrachians to reptiles, from reptiles to mammals." *Jean Rostand, The Orion Book of Evolution (1961), p. 79.

*Richard Goldschmidt recognizes that these petty mutilations could never accomplish a species crossover. That is why he champions the idea of an occasional event in which massive multimillion mutations all occur at once. Of course, his idea would never work, since mutations are always chance, disorganized, unpredictable occurrences, so a million of them would not cooperate with one another and accomplish any more than a dozen would. And since 99 percent of them are harmful or lethal, Goldschmidt's theory could not accomplish the goal.

But here is what he says about the inconsequential nature 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 sub-specific level must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this unproved claim, glossing tightly 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 Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" theory, since it is based on mutational 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 would have to all be there togetherinstantlyin 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 the basic principles of scientific explanation." *A. Koesder, 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 cog wheels 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 cog wheels 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 of 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 mutationor even several to accomplish the needed task.

"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 4.80 x 1060. 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 feel that any requisite number beyond 1060 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence (and even that gives it the benefit of the doubt). Any species known to us, including the smallest single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than 100 a 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 occurrencerandom mutations (to use the evolutionist's favorite expression)." L. L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.

Mutational changes are, indeed totally impossible as a means of constructive, beneficial change in an organism. Notice what Gish says in the final paragraph, below:

"Most, if not all, of our characteristics are polygenetic, that is, they are under the control of not one but a number of genes. For instance, eye color in Drosophila [the fruit fly] is under the control of 15 genes. The desirable alteration of a certain characteristic, if that is possible at all, most likely would require changes in more than one particular gene. precisely coordinated changes in several genes would probably be required.

"If all the above problems could be solved, which seems incredible, one insuperable difficulty would yet remain. In each gene there are thousands of nucleotides, but only four different kinds of bases. In a gene of 10,000 nucleotides, there would be, on the average, 2,500 of each of the four different kinds of bases.

"Let us say we knew that to bring about a specific desirable change, we had to change the adenine, at position 5,263 of the chain, to a guanine. If a chemical or irradiation or some other kind of treatment were used, how could the effect of that treatment be limited to position 5,263 without affecting one of the other 2,499 adenines in this DNA. It could not." Duane Gish, "DNA: Its History and Potential, " in WE. Lammerts (ed.), Scientific Studies in Special Creation (1971), p. 315.

  20 - REPRODUCTIVE CHANGES LOW. Another significant point, one which would itself highly limit the possibilities for mutational change, is the fact that mutational changes in the reproductive cells occurs 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 COMPLEXITY. Here is yet another major problem for the evolutionists:

(1) Evolution, by its very nature, must move upward into every-increasing complexity and better structural organization and completeness. Indeed, this is a cardinal dictum of the evolutionists, who declare that evolution can only move upward toward more involved life-forms, and never backward into previously-evolved life-forms.

(2) 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 chemicals, 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 in place. 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 !s 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).

 24 EVOLUTION REQUIRES COMPLICATED NETWORKING. A relatively now field of scientific study is called "linkage" or "linkage interconnections." 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. One structure or organ is related to anotherand 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 probably one of the reasons why mutations are always injurious to an organism. Success would require (1) millions of simultaneous mutations in order to maintain proper networking. In addition, each of those mutations would have to be positivewith none negative; none harmful in the least manner. Why "millions of simultaneous mutations"? Because each network would at many points interconnect with still other networks. For example, 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 - NOT ENOUGH VISIBLE MUTATIONS. "Visible mutations "are those genetic changes that are easily detectable, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. *Winchester explains that, for every visible mutation, there are 20 lethal invisible ones! Yet it would be the visible ones which would have to be present to produce the changes needed to take one species across to another one, if that could be done. 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. Herbert Nilsson, 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 happenings

"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 a 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. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist, " American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.

"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 a 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 othersforbids the possibility that random mutations could change them into new species. This is because 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.

You have just completed

Chapter 14 MUTATIONS Part 1
Continue Go to

Chapter 14 MUTATIONS Part 2

PO BOX 300 - ALTAMONT, TN. 37301 USA



Rambler's Top100