Aside from the impossibility of a billion positive, internetworking, mutations suddenly occurring, the hopeful monster theory nicely explains the sudden appearance of species in the fossil record, but it cannot explain how over a million species could suddenly appear! 

"The Eldredge and Gould model helps to explain the sudden appearance of fossil species, but it is inadequate to explain the simultaneous appearance of many forms of life . . or, for that matter, the sudden disappearance of many unrelated species." *C.R.C. Paul, Natural History of Fossils (1980), p. 215.

 Part of the Gould/Eldredge model of hopeful monsters requires that when a new species appears, it will always start in a certain locality and then slowly spread out from there across the land. But this does not agree with fossil strata facts, or biological population studies.

"Although uncertainty exists about just how recently the pairs of species diverged and about the relation between range and population size, Anderson and Evenson's data does not support Eldredge and Gould's claim that speciating populations are very small." *Mark Ridley, "Evolution and Gaps in the Fossil Record," in Nature 286(5772):444-445 (1980). *Anderson and *Evenson did a 1978 study on geographic ranges of North American species which are supposed to have diverged recently.]

 The hopeful monster theory requires sudden, billion-fold aberrant changes in DNA. But scientists disagree that this could occur.

"Even given a correlation between chromosome differences and speciation, it is not obvious which is cause and which effect, nor can we be sure that chromosomal speciation would necessarily produce punctuated evolution." *Ibid.

 *Gould's theory requires massive chromosome changes that simply are not found anywhere.

"If one looks at some of the proposed chromosome species mechanisms that so excite Gould, one suspects that orthodox evolutionists would like more proof as to their universal nature." *Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies (1982), p. 218.

The only major mutation mechanisms known (such as sitting under an atomic bomb when it explodes) have a way of accomplishing little more than destroying the organism faster than a smaller number of mutations would.

"However, although geneticists know of some mutations which cause fairly drastic changes, they have entirely failed to discover the kind of macromutations required by the saltation theory the kind of mutation which would take a group of organisms form one order to another. Moreover, the large-effect mutations which are known are usually just those mutations which are the most crippling to their carrier . . Of course, one might argue that the failure to find the right kind of macromutations does not necessarily prove their non-existence, but, like unicorns, there is a difference between saying that logically they might exist, or that it is reasonable to suppose that they exist." *Michael Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 111 [italics his].

 Multiple mutations could not occur and become fixed in an organism, because such an occurrence would quickly kill the organism.

"There are few (if any) genetically well-established cases of morphological macromutations which have been fixed in natural populations of animals. Mutations of large effect are almost always deleterious . .

"Advocates of punctuated equilibrium and macromutation cite as evidence the frequent absence of transitional forms from the fossil record. This negative information is not convincing." *Russell Lando, "A Review of Microevolution in Relation to Macroevolution, " in Paleobiology 8(2):234-5.

 It was *Stephen Jay Gould who resurrected *Richard Goldschmidt's strange "hopeful monster" theory, and brought it back into center stage. Here is *Gould writing:

"When I studied evolutionary biology in graduate school during the mid-1960s, official rebuke and derision focused upon a geneticist named Richard Goldschmidt." *S. J. Gould, "The Return of the Hopeful Monsters, " Natural History, 86(6):22 (197.

 *Gould then made a prediction which, in the next decade, he worked hard to fulfill and did fulfill, not be vindicating the theory but by winning its acceptance by a majority of biologists.

"I do, however, predict that during the next decade Goldschmidt will be largely vindicated in the world of evolutionary biology." *Ibid.

Totally lacking any fossil, historical, or living evidence for evolutionary cross-species change, biologists have in desperation bought the *Gould/*Goldschmidt theory. A year after *Gould's prediction, Gish said that it included the bird-from-reptile-egg concept.

"According to Goldschmidt, and now apparently according to could, a reptile laid an egg from which the first bird, feathers and all, was produced." D. T. Gish, Evolution? The Fossils Say No! (1978), p. 161.

 *Gould fully accepts *Goldschmidt's theory, yet on at least one occasion tried to deny that the birdout-of-a-reptile-egg sequence was part of the theory. The following statement by *Goldschmidt shows that it is part of the theory.

"O.H. Schindewolf . . showed that the material presented by paleontology leads to exactly the same conclusions as derived in my writings, to which he refers. . He shows by examples from fossil material that the major evolutionary advances must have taken place in single large steps, which affected early embryonic stages with the automatic consequence of reconstruction of all the later phases of development. He shows that the many missing links in the paleontolgical record are sought for in vain because they never existed: 'The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.' " *Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution (1940; 1982 reprint edition), p. 395.

*Mayr, a leading biological evolutionist, suggests that if Darwin was alive today, he would see the foolishness inherent in the hopeful monster theory.

"The absurdity of believing in the simultaneous appearance of numerous `hopeful monsters' as Goldschmidt has called them, was far more clearly appreciated by Darwin than by some recent evolutionists." *Ernst Mayr, Evolution and the Diversity of Life (1976), p. 93.

*Gould himself admits that he knows of no evolutionary theory which cannot be shot full of holes.

"I can envision observations and experiments that would disprove any evolutionary theory I know." *Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution as Fact and Theory," Discover 2(5):34-37 (1981).

 The controversy between the evolutionists over this matter has become quite fierce. Both sides are accusing the other of intellectual dishonesty and scientific error. First, a hopeful monster evolutionist will speak:

"Just imagine that scientific dispute has sunk to this level." "What would the falsification of this prediction imply, if not Specific Creation?" *Soren Lovtrop, "Semantics, Logic and Vulgate Neo-Darwinianism," in Evolutionary Theory, July, 1979, p. 162.

 What *Lovtrop means is that the only alternative to the hopeful monster theory is Special Creation, and surely evolutionists do not want such a terrible possibility as that! Now, we will let a neo-Darwinist speak to the subject:

"What sort of trick should we be prepared for? Bogus history for one thing . . Cracraff, supporting the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory of Eldredge and Gould, tries to show that Darwin rejected 'saltation' for 'extra-scientific' reasons. The argument is partly founded upon an egregious sophism." *Michael T. Ghiselin, Op. cit., p. 823.

 All the while the Creationists sit back and watch what is taking place.

"Punctuated equilibrists have kindly provided a non-evolutionist approach to the fossil record; steady state theorists [and Creationists] can feel grateful and encourage them in their work." G. H. Harper, "Alternatives to Evolution," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, 17(1):53 (1980).

 Here are the mathematical probabilities (impossibilities) of *Gould's monster mutations occurring:

"In a sense, the concept of 'punctuated equilibria' is tautological. In essence it submits a factual observation: since the rate of evolution is not a slow, creeping one, it is a very fast, sudden one! This concept is quite interesting from yet another aspect; it even implies the concept of creation. In the final analysis, a very sudden change is tantamount to an act of sudden creation.

"We have established that a single cell bacteria requires about 3,000,000 nucleotides so as to function and reproduce as a unicell species. A human cell contains about 3,000,000,000 nucleotides in a very specific sequence. We may assume that the cell of a trilobite was somewhere in between. Shall we extend it the benefit of the doubt and guesstimate it to have 500,000,000 meaningfully aligned nucleotides? (The argument would still be valid were it eventually established that a trilobite had, for example, as few as 20 million or as many as 920 million nucleotides). How will we get from 3 million to 500 million? What is the probability that 497 million nucleotides would align themselves all by themselves into a very, very specific sequence? Certainly Gould and Eldredge would agree that the probability is nil." I. L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong (1984), pp. 98-99.

 *Gould himself admits that his theory runs counter to most that is traditional in evolutionary theory:

"Macroevolution is not simply microevolution extrapolated." *Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," Natural History, June July 1977, p. 24.

"This process cannot be smoothly extrapolated to encompass evolutionary trends, because macroevolution resides on another level of the evolutionary hierarchy." *Stephen Jay Gould, "The Promise of Paleobiology as a Nonmathetic, Evolutionary Discipline," Paleobiology 6 (1980), p. 106.

 7 

MUTATIONS CANNOT PRODUCE SPECIES EVOLUTION

Mutations may provide a little variation within a given species, but that is all.

"[Mutations are] merely hereditary fluctuations around a medium position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. . they modify what pre-exists. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution." *Pierre P. Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pp. 8788.

 The mathematical possibility of even two major mutations occurring is very unlikely, yet millions of coordinated, beneficial mutations would be required to produce a new species.

"Variable mutations with the major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutations individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event." *D. Erwin, and *J. Valentine, " `Hopeful Monsters,' Transposons, and Metazoan Radiation," in Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 81, 1984, p. 5482.

The waiting time is too long.

"[Mutation] is the only apparent source of the major regulatory changes seemingly associated with major adaptive shifts. One possible objection to this view is that the waiting time for such 'hopeful mutations' may be prohibitively long. Moreover, the probability that the occurrence of such a mutation will coincide with a major environment shift requiring an appropriate adaptive response seems infinitesimally small." *J. McDonald, "The Molecular Basis of Adaptation," in Annual Review Ecology and Systematics, 14 (1983), p. 94.

 All mutations occur randomly, and as such could only damage the organism.

"The Darwinian theory is wrong because random variations tend to worsen performance, as indeed common sense suggests they must do." *Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe: A New View of Creation and Evolution (1983), p. 48

 "Randomness" is an impossible basis for genuine evolutionary improvement, yet evolutionary theory is based on it.

"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 laws physical, physico-chemical and biological." *M. Eden, "Inadequacies of New-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory, " in Mathematical Challenges to the New-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (1967), pp. 73-75.

 Mutations occur only in every 200,000 DNA copyings.

"However, in actual cells the mistakes made when DNA is copied are far fewer than this, and mistakes like point mutations occur on average only once in each complete copying of the whole 200,000 chains. So instead of throwing up large numbers of natural mutations for natural selection to act upon, the copying of DNA seems to be remarkably accurate not very helpful to the modern form of the Darwinian theory." *Fred Hoyle, The Intelligent Universe (1983), p. 35.

 At best, mutations can only accomplish trivial results.

"It would seem on the face of it that gene mutations provide a unpromising raw material for large scale evolution. Viable mutations are of the same order as the trivial differences between itera-specific races, and as such seem quite incapable of giving rise to the major divergences of structuro-functional organization which characterize large scale habit and habitat specialization and typal diversification.

"Such, however, is the faith which the Neo-Darwinians place in the efficacy of natural selection that they have no difficulty in believing that macro-evolution can be accounted for in principle by the same factors that bring about microevolution." *Ernst Mayr, "Evolution" in Scientific American, September 1978, p. 52.

 There are two types of mutations: gene mutations which only affect a single characteristic, and chromosomal mutations which only affect number or sequence of chromosomes.

"Mutations can be classified in one of two major categories: gene (or point) mutations, which affect only one or a few nucleotidase within a gene; and chromosomal mutations (or aberrations), which affect the number or the arrangement of genes in chromosome." *T. Dobzhansky, *F. Ayala, *G. Stebbins, and *J. Valentine, Evolution (1977), p. 57.

 Singly, or over a period of time, mutations within the gene cannot produce evolutionary change.

"We do not see how point mutations in structural genes can lead, even by gradual accumulation, to new morphological designs." *Stanley Gould and *Niles Eldredge, "Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Reconsidered, "in Paleobiology Vol. 3 (1977), p. 151.

 *Grasse brings out an excellent point: Evolutionists declare that gradual mutational changes over millions of years are responsible for producing new species. But *Grasse asks why, then, could creatures live hundreds of millions of years without change yet mutations were occurring in them with the same regularity as all the other creatures?

"How does the Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that the species that have been the most stable some of them for the last hundreds of millions of years have mutated as much as the others do? . . Once one has noticed microvariations [on the one hand] and specific stability [on the other], it seems very difficult to conclude that the former [microvariation] comes into play in the evolutionary process." *Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), pp. 87-88.

 Mutations are injuries, and produce impaired, pathological organisms.

"All mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of unknown mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment; only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment . . All, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect." *L Martin, "A Non-Geonoticist Looks at Evolution, " in American Scientist (1953), p. 41.

Coordinated innovations are required in order to produce worthwhile results, and this random mutations cannot provide.

"One of the twelve points rendering biological evolution inadequate, implausible, or definitely wrong, is the repeated occurrence of changes calling for numerous coordinated innovations, both at the level of organs and of complete organisms." *E. Steele, Somatic Selection and Adaptive Evolution (1981), p. 3.

 Since no half-way (transitional) species are ever found today or in the fossil record, mutational evolution theory would require that the gradual mutational changes occurred in the DNA over a vast period of time without ever producing any corresponding organic changes in the creature, until, at some point, the changeover was suddenly made! But that fact, plus the lethal nature of mutations would tend to rule out the possibility that mutations could fulfill the demands of the theory.

"The populations must remain small [undetected] and evolve steadily and consistently toward the body plan that comprises the basis of a new phylum [class]. This is asking a lot. Deleterious mutations would tend to accumulate in small populations to form genetic loads that selection might not be able to handle. Stable intermediate adaptive modes cannot be invoked as a regular feature, since we are then again faced with the problem of just where their remains are." *J. Valentine and *D. Erwin, "Interpreting Great Development Experiments: The Fossil Record," in Development as an Evolutionary Procase (1987), p. 95.

 A leading scientist declares that mutations neither coordinate nor produce evolutionary development.

"We now believe that mutations do not guide evolution; the effect of a mutation is very often far too small to be visible." *Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (1983), p. 7.

 Mutations themselves are extremely rare.

"[A mutation] happens rarely, perhaps once in a million animals or once in a million lifetimes." *C.H. Waddington, Science Today (1961), p. 36.

 The likelihood that five favorable mutations could occur in one creature is mathematically impossible.

"With an average effective breeding population of 100 million individuals and an average length of generation of one day, again extremely favorable postulates, such an event [of five mutations possibly occurring in one organism] would be expected only once in about 274 billion years, a about a hundred times the probable age of the earth. Obviously . . such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." *George Gaylord Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 96.

 The type of mutations which occur are not the type able to produce species change.

"One of the great dilemmas that modern evolutionary theory has had to face is the fact that most of the mutations found repeatedly, for instance, within populations of different Drosophila species, do NOT constitute the kind of differences which constitute [a change of] species." *H.L Carson, "Genetic Conditions which Promote or Retard Species, " in Cold Spring Harbor Symposia on Quantitative Biology 24, p. 95.

 *Fisher carefully worked out the calculation on the survival rate of mutations. Out of 10,000 mutations, assuming that all of them were beneficial, only 197 could ultimately survive. (Yet those 197 mutations would have occurred in different organisms, and a single beneficial mutation (if there is such a thing) could not produce a new species; it would take trillions of them all occurring simultaneously, and working in a perfectly meaningful, organized pattern with one another.)

"Out of 10,000 mutations which have a generous one percent elective advantage, 9,803 will eventually be eliminated." *R.A. Fisher, Genetical Theory of Natural Selection (1930), p. 273. Based on such findings, *Fisher despaired of achieving evolutionary success through mutations:

"The explanatory content of a theory of evolution only reaches its absolute zero [of probability] with the mutation theory." *R.A. Fisher, "Measurement of Selective Intensity, " in Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series 8, 121(820):58-62.

 Because so many of them are eliminated by the organism or destroy that organism or its descendants there simply is not enough time for mutations to accomplish species change.

"As K. Patau has shown, even mutations, having a one percent survival advantage, increase infrequency from 0.01 to 0.1 percent of the population only after 900,230 generations. Another 100,511 generations are needed to increase the frequency to 100 percent. Certainly the time needed for natural selection to effect a change in a large population is enormous even geologically speaking." *Growing Doubts: Is Evolutionary Theory Valid?" in Christianity Today, September 14, 1982, p. 4.

 *Julian Huxley and *George Gaylord Simpson were the two leading evolutionary proponents of the mid-20th century. Here is what *Huxley says about mutations:

"'It must be admitted that the direct and complete proof of the utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.' " *Julian Huxley, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 78.

 Here is what *Simpson says about them:

"Obviously, such a process [of multiple mutations] has played no part whatever in evolution." *George Gaylord Simpson, Major Features of Evolution (1953), p. 96.

 8

 MORE FACTS ABOUT MUTATIONS

Here is still further information about mutations, as provided to us by research scientists who are well versed in such matters:

Mutations are rare in occurring, but they also have a way of disappearing again later. This is probably due to weakening of the organism and its offspring.

"Mutations are cyclic, they occur, reoccur after disappearing continually in definite ratios. Mutations are not new, they have appeared many times in the history of the species but have disappeared again." *H. Neillson, Synthetic Speciation (1954).

 The strength and soundness of the organism is directly related to the number of mutated genes it has.

"The further a character departs from the normal, the less viable it is." *Morgan, The Genetics of Drosophila, p. 55.

"The viability sinks on an average with the number of accumulated [mutated] genes. A combination of five has a life-span only one quarter of that of the wild form, and its fertility does not even amount to one-fifth of that form." *H. Nilsson, American Nature, Vol, 57.

 *Nilsson discusses the factor that mutations do not result in species change.

"The innumerable mutations which indicate alterations in the genome (lowest haploid number of chromosomes), whether they be loss mutations, or gain mutations, macro or micromutations, viable a non-viable, as well as chromosome changes, all have this in common, that they remain as oscillatory forms, or, at most, remarkable varieties within the species, whereas if an evolutionary value is to be attached to them they must depart from the species population." *H. Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung [Synthetic Speciation], (1954), p. 177.

 Ploidy, which is a doubling of chromosomes, occurs primarily in plants, also affects the organism. But, as with mutations, it too lowers vitality and thus could not build up to produce evolution across species.

"The only hope of geneticists in producing a variety of any lasting value is in the phenomenon of polyploidy. But this hardly exists among animals and so cannot count for the evolution of organisms in general. Polyploidy should be considered as a secondary phenomenon mainly observed among plants; polyploids have the same lowering of viability and consequent loss of competitive power as the mutants and therefore are no promising material for progressive evolution." H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation (1966), p. 82.

 Earlier in the century, scientists fled from natural selection as the possible cause of evolution, and looked to mutations as the cause.

"It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on." *Ernst Mayr, Animal Species and Evolution (1963), p. 176. [ Zoology professor at Harvard.]

But the dismal facts about mutations now leave neo-Darwinian theorists with no mechanism at all to provide for the evolution of species.

"Now I am afraid that many anthropologists (including myself) have sinned against genetic

science and are leaning upon a broken read when they depend upon mutations." *Earnest Albert Hooton, Apes, Men, and Morons (1970), p. 118. [ Harvard University.]

Ironically, even if mutations could evolve species, it still could not explain how they originated. Mutations could not initially change sand and seawater into living organisms.

 A leading evolutionist deplores the fact that there seemingly appears to be no way that evolution could occur. The sheer randomness and degenerative effect of mutational or natural selection changes dooms evolution to nothing more than that of providing a pathway to extinction, rather than to progress and improvement.

"The majority of evolutive movements are degenerative. Progressive cases are exceptional. Characters appear suddenly that have no meaning toward progress [i.e., that do not evolve into anything else] . . The only thing that could be accomplished by slow changes would be the accumulation of neutral characteristics without value for survival." *John B.S. Haldane, quoted in Asimov's Book of Science and Nature Quotations, p. 91. [English geneticist.]

 Scientists alternately declare that either 99 percent or 999 percent of all mutations are harmful if not lethal. That is said to leave room for the discovery of a beneficial one. But the truth is that, when not fatal, all mutations are damaging. Every individual with mutations in it is always weaker than the original species.

Most scientists today agree that so-called "natural selection" could never pierce the species barrier for only mutations could do it. So, according to current evolutionary theory, all the millions of positive factors in each of the millions of species alive today were caused by mutations!

Mutations had to be able to change a porcupine into a cow, and a thistle into an oak tree. Yet, for a few minutes, let us consider a far simpler transformation: the transformation of regular birds into hummingbirds. According to the theory, mutations somehow had to make those structural changes and produce that marvel of the bird world, the hummingbird. Some minor finishing touches may have been said to be accomplished by random non-mutational accidents ("natural selection "), but the bulk of the change would have had to be done by those devastating mutations.

BODY SIZE As we shall briefly see below, the design and functions of the hummingbird are really amazing. Yet please keep in mind that we are here talking about a creature which is extremely small. Without its feathers, the smallest hummingbird (Cuban Hummingbird) is only two inches the size of a honey beet Most of them are only a little larger. Of the 400 kinds known, only a very few are larger than six inches.

 WINGBEAT Mutations had to do a great work to change a regular bird into a hummingbird. The wings of the little "hummer" beat at times at an unbelievable 78 beats per second! In order to do this, a variety of structures had to be restructured. And, of course, its DNA coding had to be changed. All this is said to have happened by mutations.

 BACKWARD FLIGHT Over a hundred years ago, the Duke of Argyle, in his book, Reign of Law, decidedly proclaimed, "No bird can ever fly backwards." He then went on to explain that the hummingbird was really just "falling backwards." But not so, the hummingbird does fly backward, just as easily as he can fly forward. In fact, the little creature can even fly upside down!

FANTASTIC COLORING Ever since Europeans first discovered the little hummers, they have called them "flying jewels." This is because of their brilliant coloring which looks like sparkling rubies, sapphires, and other precious stones. In several aviaries, worldwide, the rooms in which they are housed are known as "jewel rooms." How do they flash on such brilliant color sand then flash them off again? More on this later. There is no doubt but that we have here a real challenge for mutations.

 HEART The weight of a hummingbird's heart ranges from 1.75 to 2.5 percent of its total body weight. This is the largest among all animals! The smallest hummingbirds have proportionately the largest hearts. Hummers must have such large hearts because of their small size, combined with the fact that they have such a high metabolism and their method of feeding requires them to fly so much.

The body of a hummingbird is so small that it does not have much blood, yet it is rapidly circulated. Unique among the birds, the hummingbird lacks not only the left but also the right systemic (or fourth aortic arch). How can this be? How did mutations work that out? But there it is: part of its aortic system missing, and the bird is doing just fine.

When resting, a hummer's heart beats approximately 500 times per minute. However, this rate can go up to over 1,200 times per minute when the bird is excited. Compare that with a low of 38 and a high of 176 times per minute for an ostrich!

 METABOLISM Hummingbirds have the most rapid metabolism of all birds, consume the greatest amount of food, relative to their body weight, of any vertebrate, and they burn up energy very quickly. How could harmful mutations accomplish that successful change?

 DIGESTIVE SYSTEM Their digestive systems seem designed to break down food as quickly as possible in order to pass it into the bloodstream and on to the body tissues. In addition, speedy elimination of body wastes had to occur also. All this required some significant redesigning of the digestive system. For example, the hummingbird does not have paired caeca (fingerlike projections), that further act on food bacteriologically. These are normally located in birds between the two intestines, but are missing in hummingbirds. Ornithologists (bird experts) cannot understand such redesigns. In addition, those vital organs are boated down low on the trunk of the bird, in order to provide balanced flight.

 EYE The hummingbird has a specially-shaped eye, which turns out to be just what it needs. Although so small and in such a tiny creature, its two eyes are exquisitely crafted and operate perfectly! Could man make a functioning, living eye that small? In reality, he cannot make a living eye any size, yet he expects lethal mutations to accomplish the task, unaided by any wisp of intelligent thought.

The shape of the hummer's eye is a globe, unlike the flat eye of the swan or the tubular eye of the owl. Each hummingbird eye is 6-8 millimeters in diameter. In contrast, an ostrich's eye is 50 millimeters in diameter.

The retina of the hummingbird has both rods and cones. The cones enable it to see color, which it must be able to do in order to locate flowers. What are these amazing cones in its eye, which can see color? Examining one closely, we find that it is a cone-shaped container, with colored oil droplets inside! These cones filter light in a manner yet unknown to scientists. How could chance accidents produce something so perfectly functioning, which no human mind today can still figure out? In the very center of the hummingbird's retinas are its fovea centralis where it has sharpest eyesight and those locations are full of cones, but no rods. There is also a special roundedness to those two areas, thus giving the hummer a visual magnification of 30 percent!

In addition to its regular eyelids, the hummingbird also has a pair of transparent eyelids! As the little fast flyer races through the air, it sees through its transparent eyelids, thus protecting its eyes from harm.

 GLANDULAR SYSTEM That extremely fast metabolism needs special high-tech glands to maintain it. That is exactly what the hummingbird has. Although adapted to fit his needs, the little fellow has all the basic glands which other birds have; in fact, he has all or nearly all the glands you and I have! How can that be? Are we related to hummingbirds? If it takes stumbling, bumbling mutations to change one species into another, why were all the delicate yet complex endocrine glands passed on without significant alteration to all the birds and mammals? Would it be possible for mutations which can only disarrange and damage to do that? Impossible.

 MUSCULAR SYSTEM The very act of flying, during which the hummingbird's entire body is supported by its wings, is a complex process that alone requires dozens of muscles. The muscles of the wings and tail must work together and make many adjustments when the bird is flying or performing its extraordinary aerial feats. All that, of course, requires carefully integrated nerve impulses from the brain. All that is supposed to have been produced by mutations?

Each feather on a bird's body is connected to a muscle! That is a lot of muscles for all those feathers, and they are all coordinated to work together. More on flight later.

There are two special muscles that enable birds to fly. But the hummingbird is unique in that both sets of muscles are balanced in a manner different from all the other birds. It is that different balance that enables it to beat its wings up and down so fast, all the while making each stroke a power stroke. Other birds only have a power stroke on the down-beat, whereas hummers are "all-power" all the time!

But those wings also can be turned to beat in directions different than that of other birds. It is for this reason that they can stop, go in reverse, or even fly upside down. It is also the reason why hummers go at nearly top speed the moment they leave the branch they were resting on.

 RESPIRATORY SYSTEM Birds, which are extremely active, have the greatest oxygen requirements among vertebrates. They have the most highly complex respiratory systems of all animals.

Hummingbirds breathe extremely rapidly. When resting, a hummingbird breathes 250 times per minute, compared to 25-30 times for a pigeon and 16 times for man. When excited, a hummer's respiratory rate goes up to 273 times a minute.

But there is more: Not only does a hummingbird have a tiny pair of regular lungs, he also has auxiliary "lungs." They are called air sacs, and there nine of them, and connected in a network. These are carefully tucked here and there in spaces alongside his vital organs. Not only do they provide additional vital oxygen, but they also lower its total body weight. Two lungs and nine air sacs, all connected to 1,000 minute capillary vessels, called parabronchi. That is where the exchange of oxygen for carbon dioxide occurs.

 SKELETAL SYSTEM The bones of a hummingbird are as light as could possibly be! Most are nearly hollow, and some are totally hollow! Yet all have special diagonal struts within them, that make the bones stronger than if they were solid! How did mutations accomplish that one?

Then there is the amazing hyoid apparatus. More on that shortly, when we consider its marvelous tongue.

The hummingbird has eight pairs of ribs, two more than most birds, particularly land birds. How did that happen? Is the hummingbird descended from the giant albatross?

The hummingbird has a larger sternum, proportionally, than any bird in the world. It has exactly what it needs, but how did it get it? Not through damaging mutations, surely not. This keel shape of the sternum provides a strong base for the wing muscles to attach to, so the hummer's wings can do all those acrobatics necessary to go in, back out, vertically lift, descend, and fly upside down as it extracts nectar from the flowers.

In addition, the proportion of the wing bones does not match that of any other bird's wing bones. Yet all those changes were needed for the hummingbird to fly as ft does. Just one change not made, and there would be no hummingbird. Would that matter? No, it would not. All the world would continue on without hummingbirds, but there are a number of flowers which would not exist without the hummingbird to pollinate them. Those special flowers are called "hummingbird flowers" by the scientists. Without the hummer, none of them would exist. Yet there they are, and there is the hummingbird; both made for each other.

 TONGUE Supporting the tongue and extending behind it is the hyoid apparatus, which forms two arms (or horns) under the jaw, and passes around the back of the skull. When the hummingbird decides to extend its tongue, these horns slide forward. The problem here is that extremely long tongue! It must be able to be retracted back into the skull, and, in an instant, be pushed far out beyond the end of the spear-like bill. The next time you look at a hummingbird, notice the great length of its bill. The tongue can easily extend out that same length beyond the tip of the bill!

The tip of that tongue splits in two, and the little hummingbird obtains the nectar by lapping it up. The tongue collects nectar by means of a licking motion at a rate of about 13 licks per second, regardless of the size of the hummer. Approximately 3.1 to 7.9 grams of nectar are consumed by a hummingbird at a feeder at one time.

 IRIDESCENT COLORATION When you look at an animal, you see what color it is. But when you look at a hummingbird part of the color on its body keeps changing! In addition, that color seems to glow and shimmer with the appearance of brilliant metal!

For hundreds of years, scientists could not figure out this strange coloring of the hummingbird. Even Isaac Newton was not certain of the cause. Early microscopes were still not powerful enough to provide an explanation.

A regular feather has barbicels which lock together strengthening it. But the top-half of certain bird feathers are iridescent. They lack the barbicels, and instead have tiny circular structures of varying sizes called platelets. These platelets set together like a tile floor with small dark spaces between tiles. Each platelet has air bubbles within it. The thickness of the platelet, and the amount of air inside determines the specific color to be seen.

The feathers of the gorget (the brilliant neck feathers of the hummingbird) and crown (top of its head) are the most specialized of all. These feathers contain, in special measure, these tiny, flat mirrors. Light that hits them can be reflected in only one direction. The sun, viewer, and bird must be aligned a certain way to see the colors at their best. Because of this, from different angles, the color of those feathers may appear to be dusky green, violet, or even red. But when those little mirrors are not reflecting light toward you, those feathers will appear to be black!

Some hummers have these platelet feathers on their back (between the wing feathers). But those barbules are curved inward so their platelets are like concave mirrors. As a result, the back feathers on Anna's hummingbird, for example, always shine with the same color (a less intense golden green) instead of several different colors.

Obviously, all this took planning! Intelligent planning In fact, it would be an understatement of the highest order to say it didn't! But what about the wing feathers; why are they not iridescent? More careful planning. Wing feathers have to be able to hook and unhook constantly during flight. This hooking feature adds greatly to their strength. But iridescent feathers have the little platelets (the mirrors) instead of the barbicels (the hooks). This is why you will see iridescence on the neck of the male mallard duck, but you will not see it on its wings.

Iridescent feathers may be seen here and there on all the feathers of a hummingbird, except for its wing feathers: primaries, secondaries, and tail feathers.

"Oh," someone will say, "evolution produced that." But there is no useful need for iridescent feathers. They are only "for looks," and not crucial to the life of the hummingbird. In fact, those brilliant, flashing colors make it easier for their enemies to see them. At mating time, it is well known among ornithologists that the female hummingbird initially seeks out the male, rather than the other way around. So iridescence is not necessary to the survival of the species. Nesting and the raising of young would occur anyway.

Evolutionary theory cannot explain the hummingbird, and mutations could not possibly produce it.

Before concluding on feathers, it is well to note that, at yearly molting time, one wing feather is lost and comes back in, before another is lost. If this were not so, the small bird could not fly and would be defenseless. In addition, at molting time, the last new feathers to come in are those on the gorget and crown. In this way, the most brilliant iridescent feathers on the little hummer will be the most beautiful throughout the summer.

FLIGHT We have already mentioned that the hummingbird has specially structured wings. Its wing muscles alone account for 25-30 percent of its total weight! (It is 15-25 percent in other skillful fliers, and 6-7 percent in chickens.)

The upstroke and downstroke of a hummingbird's wings are equally powered; its upstroke and downstroke muscles weigh the same. This is why it can hover, lift vertically, fly backwards, and upside down. In all other birds, the downstroke is most important, and their upstroke muscles weigh only 5-10 percent as much as their downstroke muscles. That took planning, and destructive mutations would not be up to the task.

The hummingbird wing can rotate only at the shoulder insertion, which, remarkably, can rotate 180 degrees! This, combined with the lack of flexibility in its wrist and elbow joints, produces an oar-like wing beat which can beat in any direction. Unlike all other birds, the hummingbird has a very short "arm" and extremely long "hand" bones. But it all works together to provide the little hummer with those amazing flight characteristics.

It was impossible to study the flight of a hummingbird until the strobe light was invented. With a flash of 1/100,000 second, the bird's flight could at last be studied.

For example, when the bird begins to lift off its perch on a twig the first three wing strokes take place in 7/1,000 of a second! When the bird starts to fly, it has already almost reached top speed immediately. Also, it does not push off from the branch to start, as do other birds; the wings do it all.

WHY were such complicated flying techniques needed? They were not needed. Nature does not need the hummingbird, nor does it need the "hummingbird flowers" which they feed upon, and which would not exist without them. *Charles Darwin's co-developer of the evolutionary theory, *Alfred Wallace, said that the theory could not explain the deep intelligence of the human mind, because such intelligence was not needed for "the survival of the fittest." But neither is the hummingbird needed! It is a totally unnecessary adjunct that, according to evolutionary theory, should not exist.

The complex pattern of its wing motion is a study in pure mechanics. In flying forward, its little wings trace an oval in the air. When it decides to slow down, the oval is drawn more vertically. Then, by slanting the wings differently, it can fly backwards just as easily. How does it do it? In this way: the body is nearly vertical, tail is lifted, and wings trace an almost horizontal circle above its head (similar to the forward helicopter blades). The wings also beat slightly faster.

Mutations are supposed to produce that? If mutations can produce hummingbirds, we need to all go as tourists to Chernobyl and bask in its wonderfully transforming rays in the hope that the mutations induced there in our bodies will change us into supermen.

When there is nothing to rest upon, a hummingbird must hover while sipping nectar. To do this, it places its body in a verticalor nearly-vertical position, and its fully extended wings do not flap up and down, but instead, move forward and backward in a figure-eight pattern that is parallel to the ground. In making that forward-then-backward pattern, two almost-180-degree turns are made. When the wings move forward, they push the air downward, when they move backward, they push the air upward, and the muscles are calibrated to give a little more thrust to the forward stroke. That little bird is not smart enough to figure out all that! Neither are senseless, accidental, random, harmful mutations! Yet the fledgling hummingbird can hover vertically very soon after taking flight, and it does so without any instruction from its parents.

One forward and one backward wingstroke equals one beat. Large hummingbirds average 18-28 beats per second, and small hummers 38-78 beats per second. In comparison, a crow beats its wings 3.6 times per second. Small hummingbirds (such as the Rufus and Ruby-throated) have wingbeats up to 200 times a second during their nuptial dives.

Hummingbirds can fly as fast as 55 mph. In relation to its size, it is the fastest bird in the world, but in actual miles-per-hour, certain other birds can fly faster.

 COURTSHIP Without taking the space to discuss all that is involved in courtship and nesting, we will note two points.

The first is the courtship display flight. Here is how it is done by Anna's Hummingbird: With its bill pointed downward, the male rises up and up into the air, 75 to 150 feet. He may then pause and sing briefly but then dives downward in a steep, fast dive, at the bottom of which he stops momentarily. Then up again he goes again as he peers downward. He will repeat the procedure several times, and then on the final dive, he swoops dramatically over the female, and at the precise moment when he reaches the bottom of the dive, he emits a loud metallic popping sound that can be heard for quite some distance, while his shimmering splendor shines in the sun. (Interestingly enough, he prefers to only do this on sunny days.)

The second point would be a brief mention that there are complicated procedures the female must go through to maintain body heat in her eggs and young, during cold spells and at night, until they are old enough to generate their own heat.

h is no little thing to produce a live, functioning hummingbird! You cannot do it; I cannot do it. Mutations cannot do it.

 MIGRATION Instead of remaining in the warm climates of Central and South America, certain hummingbirds fly north each spring to the United States where they live and nest throughout the summer. For example, the Ruby-throated Hummingbird (the only hummingbird found in the eastern states, not including Florida) flies 500 miles nonstop each spring and 500 miles nonstop each fall! This flight is not down into Central America, but across the Gulf of Mexico to South America! As earlier mentioned, these birds burn terrific amounts of body energy whenever they are in the air. So just think what a nonstop flight across the Gulf of Mexico must be like! Prior to starting it, the little bird "knows" to add 40-50 percent of extra fat to its body weight.

Why does he do it? That nonstop flight makes no sense in light of evolutionary theory. It is a dangerous extra that need not be. Yet the little hummingbird does it twice every year.

 CONCLUSION In this study we did not take time to discuss many complicated life patterns of hummingbirds. This would include the temperature mechanisms in hummingbirds, whereby they go into nightly torpor so they will not die, when temperatures fall too low. This life-saving technique could not be produced by mutations. Also their relationship to the specialized "hummingbird flowers" was only referred to in passing. (There are approximately 129 species of hummingbird plants in the southwestern United States alone, and about 20 additional ones have been identified in the Northeast. Most of these are softwood subshrubs and perennial herbs. In Central and South America, where there are far more hummingbirds, there are many more special "hummingbird flower" species.)

We also did not mention those tiny hummingbird eggs! These are the smallest bird eggs in the world. Each one is only the size of a small bean. Yet, upon hatching and growing up, it will only produce a small hummingbird which, stripped of his feathers, is as large as one or two honey bees in length. Yet within that tiny body is packed most of the basic equipment found in all other birds! This is astounding! Ask any mechanical or electronics expert, and he will tell you that the highest-level technology is required in miniaturizing something. To pack so much into such a small container requires advanced intelligence. Mutations did not do it.

"Oh," someone will say, "but the world has bean here for millions of years, so there was lots of time for mutations to produce the hummingbird."

Guess what? There are no hummingbirds in the fossil strata! Therefore mutations did not have all those millions of years to make hummingbirds!

"Yes," someone will answer, "but there is only one hummingbird." That is not correct. Hummingbirds comprise 338 species and 116 genera of the family Trochilidae, the smallest birds in the world. Except for the American Flycatcher, which has 367 species, the Trochilidae is the largest family of birds in the Western Hemisphere! Of the 338 species of hummingbirds, only 16 breed within the boundaries of the United States. Our American species belong to 10 out of a total of 116 genera in the family Trochilidae. (In addition, 7 other species have been sighted north of the Mexican border.)

So, since there are no hummingbirds in the sedimentary strata, and there are so many types of them, how was it that harmful mutations were able to work so fast to produce them?

A fairy tale? Yes, a fairy tale. The little hummingbird is living proof that the "mutation theory" of evolutionary change is incorrect.

So many scientific facts have accumulated in the 20th century, it is like a modern battleship being attacked by a sailboat. When the facts level their guns, they are well able to blast evolutionary theory out of the water.

You have just completed

APPENDIX 14-B

NEXT Go to the next chapter in this series,

CHAPTER 15- SPECIES EVOLUTION