Evolution Encyclopedia Vol. 2
Chapter 14 MUTATIONS Part 2
SICKLE-CELL ANEMIA—Evolutionists point to sickle-cell anemia as the outstanding example of beneficial evolutionary change through mutation.
A long time ago, a mutation occurred in someone in Africa. As do all mutational changes, this one resulted in damage. In this instance, the shape of the red blood cells was changed, from its normal flattened shape, to a quarter-moon shape. Evolutionists rejoice over this particular mutational change, because, instead of causing death in one or two generations, it passed into the race and became a recessive factor.
The problem was that, although the blood of a person with sickle-cell anemia does not properly absorb food and oxygen,—that person will oddly enough be less likely to acquire malaria from the bite of an anopheles mosquito. As a result, the sickle-cell anemia factor has become widespread in Africa. This is the best example of a "beneficial" mutation that evolutionary scientists are able to offer us.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
"Actually, only three evolutionists have ever given me an example of a beneficial mutation. It was the same example all three times: sickle-cell anemia . . Sickle-cell anemia is often given as an example of a favorable mutation, because people carrying sickle-cell hemoglobin in their red blood cells are resistant to malaria. But the price for this protection is high: 25 percent of the children of carriers will probably die of the anemia, and another 25 percent are subject to malaria.
"The gene will automatically be selected when the death rate from malaria is high, but evolutionists themselves admit that short time advantages—all that natural selection favors—can produce 'mischievous results' detrimental to long-term survival." —Henry Morris and Gary Parker, What is Creation Science? (1987), pp. 103, 104.
Actual statistics reveal that the death rate from malaria for normal people in certain parts of Africa is over 30 percent, while only 25 percent of carriers of sickle-cell anemia are likely to contract it. But in return for the advantage, 25 percent of their children will die of this serious anemia. These carriers have a 50-50 proportion of regular and sickle-cell red blood cells, but 25 percent of their children will have 100 percent sickle-cell RBCs, and will die as a result. The other 75 percent will also be carriers and have the 50-50 proportion of cells.
In sickle cell anemia, one amino acid in a peptide of nine in a string is faulty; instead of glutamic acid it is valine. That one change makes all the difference, changing regular hemoglobin into sickle cell hemoglobin. Interestingly enough, this outstanding example of a "beneficial mutant" not only damages those who have it, but in the process eradicates itself. It is only the deaths caused by malaria that favor it.
"In regions where malaria is not an acute problem, the gene does tend to die out. In America, the incidence of sickle-cell genes among blacks may have started as high as 25 percent. Even allowing for a reduction to an estimated 15 percent by mixture with non-black individuals, the present incidence of only 9 percent shows that the gene is dwindling away. In all probability it will continue to do so. If Africa is freed of malaria, the gene will presumably dwindle there, too." —*Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science (1984), p. 819.
3 - MUTATIONAL RESEARCH
HISTORY OP RESEARCH —Because the mainstay of evolutionary theory is mutations, if would be well if we gave a little space to a brief review of research on mutations. This will show how thoroughly this matter has been investigated. A number of Individuals have dedicated their lifetime to an analysts of mutations.
Mutations were first studied by * Hugo DeVries, *T. H. Morgan, *Calvin Bridges, and *A.H. Sturtevant. Above the microscopic level, fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster) reproduce faster than any other creature that is large enough to be effectively worked with and observed. These men spent years patiently collecting information on naturally-occurring mutations in fruit flies. They studied eye color, wing form, eye structure, bristle arrangement, and many other features of this small fly.
Careful breeding experiments produced information on each of the four chromosomes in the fruit fly, and the genes within each one. The mutant genes were carefully located, and, inside each mutant chromosome, their exact positions were determined. Fairly precise "chromosome maps" were made.
Similar maps were made of corn, tomatoes, flour beetles, and several grains.
X-RAYS ENTER—A major breakthrough came in 1928 when * H.J. Mullet discovered that X-rays could speed up mutations. Now a way was available by which the researchers could increase the mutations on a million-fold faster basis. Irradiation of the little fruit flies in their glass jars enabled the scientists to calculate the rate at which mutations were beneficial, neutral, or harmful.
"Radiation is in fact the only type of agent yet known to which human beings are likely to be exposed in quantity sufficient to cause any considerable production of mutations in them." —*George W. Beadle, "Ionizing Radiation and the Citizen," in Scientific American, Vol. 201, September 1959, p. 224.
Ignoring the fact that in nature mutations occur only very rarely, it was now hoped that by speeding up the frequency of mutations, an invaluable collection of statistical evidence could be compiled;—evidence that, it was hoped, would prove that mutations could indeed produce all the complicated traits in the entire plant and animal kingdoms.
But then came a very great disappointment: most mutations were found to be harmful.
"There is a reason to believe, however, that exposure to high energy irradiation of any kind, and at any dosage level, is potentially harmful. Mutations are generally proportional to the dosage and the effect is cumulative." —*E. J. Gardner, Principles of Genetics (1964), p. 192.
At first, they thought they had discovered that only one in a thousand mutations was neutral or even slightly positive, with all the a rest negative. But then, gradually, they realized that the situation was even worse: that one-in-a-thousand "good" mutations did not exist! They were all bad!
For additional information see quotation supplement, "4 - Fruit Flies Speak Up, " in the appendix.
X-RAYED PLANTS—Then the scientists, turned their X-rays on plant genes. They were very surprised at what they discovered: Mutations were not the source of many varieties of flowers! These were caused by genetic factors unrelated to mutations. This was another crushing blow to the evolutionists. Flower and plant varieties are often very positive and quite beneficial, and it was hoped that they were caused by mutations. But this was not the case. In fact, it was found that X-rays were generally not very effective in inducing variations in plants.
(Even if mutations had been the cause of the many varieties of flowers, for example, those varieties would still involve only changes within kinds and not across kinds.)
As with animal life, so with plants; it was found that most mutations resulted in harmful effects and semi-sterile life forms. Many of the plant mutations involved splitting and reattaching chromosomes, and most were found to be lethal.
NATURAL CONDITIONS—Then population geneticists studied the actual way mutations occurred under natural field conditions. Simultaneously, other studies were made of radiation caused mutations by gamma rays, neutron rays, and various mutagenic chemicals.
It was obvious to the scientists that mutations simply had to be the answer; there was no other way evolution could have occurred. Large numbers of expensive research projects were funded.
A breakthrough in causing a dramatic increase in mutated plants came with the discovery that irradiated "budding eyes" of roses would dramatically increase mutational production in roses. Fifty irradiated budding eyes could yield more mutations than a million rose plants in a field in a lifetime of reproductions.
Now much faster, more thorough work on plant mutations could be obtained. Plant research intensified. But then came another crushing blow: It was discovered that, although some plant mutations showed usefulness, most were worthless or fatal.
Of the useful ones (change in petal number, loss of color, etc.), all of the plants having them were weaker than their unradiated parents. In the end, all of the useful ones failed commercially since they were not vigorous enough under varying garden conditions.
In every instance, even the best of the mutated plant forms were significantly weaker, or had a reduced fertility. The only exceptions were those few that could be given special care throughout their lifetime, such as certain sheltered, in-house ornamental plants.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
But not once did it happen. In fact, the multiplied millions of mutations induced by countless irradiations did not in one instance even improve the fruit fly species, much less change it into another one! All that was accomplished was the production of such miserable creatures as you see on these two pages. Few men have been as embittered as have conscientious geneticists who have dedicated their lives to fruit fly research.—for they saw clearly what few scientists would admit—that evolution is impossible
CLICK TO ENLARGE
Gradually it became obvious that induced mutation varieties were not able to demonstrate evolution in action, or even in possibility.
THE BAND STUDIES—Still another setback came with the release of the * H. T. Band conclusions in the early 1960s. Band did studies from 1947 to 1962 among naturally-occurring fruitflies living outside of laboratories.
One important discovery that she made was that natural selection was not eliminating "genetic load," or the gradually increasing negative effect of mutations. Natural selection had not, as hopefully predicted by neo-evolutionary theory, weeded out those bad effects. This meant that if a species was to evolve by natural selection alone—or by natural selection plus mutations,—the genetic load of harmful mutations would eventually become so high in a few hundred generations as to result in all offspring having defects.
But the fact that this is not happening among plants, animals, and man—argues for a special creation of the species unit, and for its existence for a relatively short period of time, instead of hundreds of thousands of years.
RESISTANT STRAINS—But soon hopes ran high again. It was discovered that strains of bacteria resistant to penicillin, aureomycin, or chloromycetin appeared when these drugs were given for various diseases. Could it be that here were the "beneficial mutations" that science was searching for, which natural selection was favoring?
These hopes were dashed when it was discovered that those mutations did not arise because of exposure to antibiotics, but instead occurred spontaneously at a constant rate—regardless of whether or not antibiotics were present.
Then came even worse news: Because those resistant strains were mutants, they were always weaker and soon died out from natural causes other than the antibiotics.
To say it again: Doses of antibiotic kill off the natural strain, and the mutated form takes over. Then when the antibiotic treatment is stopped, the natural strain increases and the resistant strain soon dies out—because, as a mutated form it never was strong.
"Certain strains of bacteria and flies seemed to be induced which were resistant to penicillin and DDT, after exposure to these chemicals. As will be shown later they already existed and it only seemed that the fittest were surviving." —Walter E. Lammerts, book review, in Creation Research Society Quarterly, June 1977, p. 75.
[Discussing the resistance of house flies to DDT and certain other chemicals, a resistance parallel to that of resistant bacteria:] "It is now well established that the development of increased ability in insects to survive exposure is not induced directly by the insecticides themselves. These chemical do not cause the genetic changes in insects [therefore they are not mutation-inducing agents]; they serve only as selective agents, eliminating the more susceptible insects and enabling the more tolerant survivors to increase and fill the void created by the destruction of susceptible individuals." —*C .P. Georghiou, et al., "Housefly Resistance to Insecticides," in California Agriculture, 19:8-10.
Evolutionists have convinced themselves that resistant strains are a marvelous demonstration of evolution. Yet this is not true. No change across the species barrier has occurred.
"Just a creatures in nature respond to predators with new defenses, so the targets of human medicine and pest control show an amazing resilience [to pesticides]. It is the most common example of evolution 'in action.' Those who claim we never 'see' evolution at work need only look at resistant strains." —*R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990), p. 388.
But the resistance of certain strains of bacteria, flies, Indian meal moths, and Anopheles (malaria) mosquitoes to DDT and other pesticides is not evolution, any more than breeding of new varieties of dogs and cats is evolution.
THE BENZER STUDIES—Then in the early 1960s, *Seymour Benzer discovered a chemical way to more quickly obtain genetic data. This enabled scientists to do more accurate and in-depth studies of mutations in genes. Using a certain chemical (5-bromouracin,) they were able to increase mutations ten-thousand-fold!
This gave the scientists so much statistical data that they were at last able to confirm what they had suspected all along: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful to the DNA and the organism; they were 100 percent harmful! It was discovered that in EVERY instance, mutations caused some kind of damage—always!
Out of it all, the researchers learned that DNA coding in the genes simply will not tolerate much change.
More than just the slightest amount will ruin the code and the organism will be greatly weakened.
It is like tossing a stone into the delicate gears of a high-quality machine. Even the simplest organism, with the smallest amount of DNA as its inherent coding, cannot cope successfully with mutations.
For additional information see the supplement, "5 -An Evolutionist's Paradise, " in the appendix.
DISPROVED BY FOSSIL EVIDENCE—Neo-Darwinists declare that evolution occurred by many little changes in the genes that gradually changed one species into something ever so slightly different, and then that species changed into something slightly different, and on and on, until after many transitional species had lived and died, another of the species we have today came into existence.
But there is no evidence in the fossil record of all those transitional species that mutations are supposed to have produced! The fossil record disproves the mutation theory.
"In rapid evolutionary changes in animal lines the process may have been a typically neo-Darwinian one of the accumulation of numerous small adaptive mutations, but an accumulation at an unusually rapid rate. Unfortunately there is in general little evidence on this point in the fossil record, for intermediate evolutionary forms representative of this phenomenon are extremely rare.
"'Links' are missing just where we most fervently desire them, and it is all too probable that
many 'links' will continue to be missing." —*A. S. Romer, chapter in Genetics, Paleontology and Evolution (1963), p. 114.
SEARCHING FOR A WAY—It seems that there is no solution for evolution, now that mutations have been shown to be impossible as a cause of evolution.
First, *Charles Darwin's theory that evolution occurred as a result of natural selection had to be abandoned. Then upon the ashes of that theory, known as "Darwinism," arose "neo-Darwinism," which proclaimed that evolutionary change from one kind to another was accomplished through mutations, with later refinements effected by natural selection.
Publicly, most evolutionary scientists call themselves neo-Darwinists, but privately they are in a quandary. The evidence which you are reading in this and the last chapter, which so thoroughly destroys the basis for evolution, is already known to a majority of confirmed evolutionists.
The future indeed looks bleak for their theory, but they continue to make a brave front, and through various national organizations, continue to demand that evolution alone be taught in public schools and accredited colleges and universities.
But some have come up with alternate suggestions which border on the ridiculous:
CLICK TO ENLARGE
4 - MAMMOTH MUTATION THEORY- HOPEFUL MONSTERS Because there is no evidence from natural selection, mutations, and fossils for transitional species (innumerable species with various small changes spanning across from one species to another), *Richard Goldschmidt of the University of California proposed his "saltation theory," in which no transitional forms would be necessary.
According to this theory, all evolution occurred by immense mutational leaps from one life-form to another. It goes something like this:
Every so often a mammoth collection of billions of random mutations has occurred all at once—that has produced a totally new species. For example, two rabbits produced a male bear cub, and, coincidentally, just over the hill two other rabbits produced a female bear cub! Both baby bears were able to get enough milk from their mother rabbits so that they grew to maturity and reproduced all the bears in the world. That is how the bears got their start in life.
According to *Goldschmidt, this is the way it worked for every other species in the world!
Popularly referred to as the "hopeful monster theory," it taught that one day a reptile laid an egg and a "brown furry thing" hatched out of it. Chance would have it that, when it grew up, this mammal found a mate that had also suddenly by chance hatched out of another reptile egg—and the result was a new species of animal.
Is this science-fiction, Greek myth, or Anderson's fairy tales? At any rate, it is believed by a number of modern scientists as a solution to the evolutionary problem. Such is desperation in the extreme.
"Some scientists are proposing even more rapid evolutionary changes and are now dealing quite seriously with ideas once popularized only in fiction." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations, " Science Digest, February 1982, p. 92.
One of the reasons these men can be so bold to invent those impossible stories is because they are dealing with something they know so little about: living tissue, structural networkings, and genetic factors.
"Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations, " Science Digest, February 1982, p. 92. [Quoting British zoologist Colin Patterson.]
"Many biologists think new species may be produced by sudden, drastic changes in genes." —*World Book Encyclopedia, Vol. e, p. 335 (1982 edition).
"Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires." —*John Gliedman, "Miracle Mutations, " Science Digest, February 1982, p. 92.
*Richard Goldschmidt was a veteran genetics researcher, and the fruit flies taught him enough lessons that he totally gave up on the possibility that one-by-one mutations could accomplish the task of evolution. But the truth is that there is no other kind of mutations!
No mammoth mutations can or would occur. None occurred at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, Chernobyl, in the irradiated budding eyes of research roses, or the thousands of laboratory fruit fly jars. If they had occurred, we would have seen new species form. The 20th century has been the century, above all others, for new species to arise. But it has not happened.
"After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. the changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species." —*Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.
In 1972, *Stephen Gould of Harvard University, working with *Niles Eldredge, expanded on "Goldschmidt's idea—and called it "punctuated equilibrium. " The May 1977 issue of Natural History carried an article with his position and his reasons for it.
As a respected paleontologist, Gould was fully aware that there simply was no fossil evidence for evolution of one species from another. All the evidence from the world around us, and the fossil record from the past, points to separate, distinct species, with no transitional species linking them.
In the article, Gould opens up this entire problem—and says that "hopeful monsters" are the only possible answer: entirely new species which were suddenly born from totally different creatures) One day a lizard laid an egg and a beaver hatched out of it.
Declaring that "we never see the processes we profess to study," Gould announced his new position which he described by an awesome new name: "punctuated equilibrium. " By this term he means that for 50,000 years or so, there will be no change (an "equilibrium" without any evolution). And then, suddenly (in a very rare "punctuation" and by total chance, two totally different life-forms will emerge.
By sheerest chance, one will always be a male and the other a female. Coincidentally, they will always appear at the same time in history, and less than a few miles apart, so they can continue on the new species. Although both multi-billion mutational accidents will have occurred by random chance,—yet (1) both will be the same new species, (2) one will be male and other female, and (3) both will be born a short distance from one another. And we might add a fourth point: (4) It will not be happening now.
*Richard Goldschmidt called them "hopeful monsters;" then *Stephan Gould named the process "punctuated equilibrium; " soon to be followed by *Steven Stanley who said it was "quantum speciation. "
All this makes for interesting reading—and laughter and backroom debates by scientists, but all these efforts by *Goldschmidt, *Gould, *Eldredge, *Stanley and others to urge sudden multibillion positive mutational features is really no solution to the crisis that evolution finds itself in. The very idea reveals the depth of desperation on the part of men who know of no other way to prove the impossible.
(1) Each of these gigantic mutations, involving millions upon millions of gene factors, is said to have suddenly appeared. Scientific evidence from mutations, as well as mathematical probabilities, both totally deny such a possibility.
(2) Each immense mutational form is said to have occurred totally by chance, yet it always produced two such creatures, one male and one female, at the same time and in the same locality!
(3) Because of the totally impossible mathematical improbability that a billion, positive, random gene changes could occur, in which all of the mutational changes worked together to smoothly produce a perfect new creature—Gould said such an event could only happen twice in every 50,000 years! Those two ultra-rare 50,000-year occurrences would always happen at the same time close to each other, producing one male and one female. This story sounds stranger than the legends of ancient India or Greece!
(4) There are hundreds of thousands of plant and animal species on the earth, yet Gould says each new two-fold one could only occur 50,000 years after the preceding one. All eternity itself could not hope to wait around for all these creatures to spring forth.
(5) Everything in nature teaches us that plant and animal life is totally interrelated. Every life-form survives because of many other life-forms. Waiting for a 20th of a million years between each monster springing forth is too long. Yet—and catch this point—Gould has to stay with lengthy time periods of "equilibrium" while nothing happened—in order to explain why it does not happen today!
(6) Each "new speciation" had to arise on the basis of multi-millions of POSITIVE mutations, yet we today cannot even find one positive mutation in millions of observed plant and animal mutations)
"Monsters" may occasionally occur, but they quickly die out; they never survive past one generation. *Mayr calls these monsters not "hopeful," but "hopeless."
"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation . . is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as `hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that 'they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through selection.' Giving a thrush the wings of a falcon does not make it a better flyer. Indeed, having all the equipment of a thrush, it would probably hardly be able to fly at all . . To believe that such a drastic mutation would 'produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, 'is equivalent to believing in miracles." —*E. Mayr, "Populations" in Species and Evolution (1970), p. 253.
Scientists recognize that *Steven Jay Gould's massive mutational changes idea would be an impossibility.
"These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" are exacerbated [made worse] when considering evolution near the Precambrian-Cambrian boundary, when now higher taxa [different life forms] appeared at such a rate that we have estimated that 1 in 40 or so species represented a new class. This figure is arguable, but it is clear that the process causing evolutionary novelty could not have depended on exceedingly rare events.
"Explanations for the Cambrian radiation of invertebrate marine phyla and classes have focused on species selection or traditional micro-evolutionary processes. The rapidity of and low species numbers during the radiation render these explanations untenable." —*D. Erwin and *J. Valentine, "Hopeful Monsters," Transposons, and Metazoan Radiation, in Proceedings National Academy of Sciences, (1984), Vol. 81, p. 5482.
It has been said that *Goldschmidt and *Gould's wild theory has the advantage of being unable to be proven or disproven by the fossil evidence. But that is not correct. Careful examination of the evidence in the sedimentary strata reveals an enormous variety of thousands of different types of fossilized plants and animals—all suddenly there. So even the fossil evidence disproves their theory.
This theory of random occurrences of almost-instant "hatchings" of totally new types of plants or animals, is supposed to have produced all the life-forms on our planet. But it all happened in the past and never happens now nor in any type of recorded history. Achieving such a stunt would be totally impossible in a laboratory setting, much less by random chance out in nature. Yet it has provided a dream for some evolutionists to cling to as they continue their search for some possible way for evolution to occur.
For additional information see quotation supplement, "B - Monster Mutations, " in the appendix.
CONCLUSION —Natural selection and mutations are the only possible means by which primitive life could evolve into all our present species. But we have observed that both are totally impossible for a number of reasons.
For additional information see quotation supplement, "7 - Mutations Cannot Produce Species Evolution,- in the appendix.
We will let the scientists write our conclusion to this chapter on mutations:
"Obviously, such a process [species change through mutations] has played no part whatever in evolution." —*Julian Huxley, Major Features of Evolution, p. 7.
"As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate, both in scope and theoretical grounding." —*Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology, April 1979, p. 349.
"In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: the fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual change. Genes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life." —*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 103, 107.
"So highly intricate are the organic and biochemical processes functioning in the animal organism, that it is not surprising that malfunction and disease occasionally intervene. One is rather amazed that a mechanism of such intricacy could ever function properly at all. All this demands a planner and sustainer of infinite intelligence... The simplest man-made mechanism requires a planner and maker. How a mechanism ten thousand times more involved and intricate can be conceived of as salt-constructed and self-developed is completely beyond me." —*E.C. Kornfield, in John Clover Monsma (ad.), The Evidence of God in an Expanding Universe (1958), p. 176.
"It is good to keep in mind . . that nobody has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micro-mutations. Darwin's theory of natural selection has never had any proof, yet it has been universally accepted." —*Richard Goldschmidt, Material Basis of Evolution.
"If mutation alone cannot explain the evolutionary process—the origin of life—why is natural selection—[which is] the elimination of the worst mutations, a negative and external agency—the only conceivable alternative?" —*Marjorie Grene, "The Faith of Darwinism," Encounter, November 1959, p. 50. [Italics ours.]
If mutations only produce negative effects, and natural selection only removes negative effects,—how can evolution result?
For additional information see the appendix topic, "8 - More Facts About Mutations."
THE ASTOUNDING THINGS OF NATURE—Every fourth chapter in this set of books [found in a separate section in the internet version] deals with amazing aspects of nature—in the stars, the earth, and in plant and animal life. We have also noted a few of those miracles (eyes, feathers, flight, and sonar) in chapter 13, Natural Selection. This present chapter on Mutations deserves a brief mention of the awesome planning to be found in nature. Such careful design and craftsmanship stand in stark contrast with the 100 percent random and harmful nature of mutations!
Here are but two simple examples which could never be produced by mutations—with or without the help of so-called "natural selection," which is nothing more than accidental changes within species.
"The bombardier beetle does appear to be unique in the animal kingdom. Its defense system is extraordinarily intricate, a cross between tear gas and a Tommy gun.
"When the beetle senses danger, it internally mixes enzymes contained in one body chamber with concentrated solutions of some rather harmless compounds, hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones, confined to a second chamber. This generates a noxious spray of caustic benzoquinones, which explodes from its body at a boiling 212 F.
"What is more, the fluid is pumped through twin rear nozzles, which can be rotated, like a B1 Ts gun turret, to hit a hungry ant or frog with a bull's eye accuracy." —*Time, February 25, 1985, p. 70.
"The Yucca moth is specifically adapted to the Yucca plant and depends on it throughout its life cycle. The Yucca plant in turn is adapted to be fertilized by this insect and by no other. The female moth collects a ball of pollen from several flowers, then finds a flower suitable for ovipositing. After depositing her egg in the soft tissue of the ovary, by means of a lance-like ovipositor, she pollinates the flower by pushing the pollen to the bottom of the funnel-shaped opening of the pistil. This permits the larva to feed on some of the developing seeds in the non-parasitized sectors of the fruit to permit the Yucca plant abundant reproduction. This perfection of the nuptial adaptation of flower and moth is indeed admirable. Yet, in addition to this pollination and egg-laying relationship, there are numerous other adaptations, such as the emergence of the moths in early summer some ten months after pupation, precisely at the time when the Yucca plants are in flower. Could blind chance have achieved such perfection?." —*Ernst Mayr, "Accident or Design, The Paradox of Evolution, " in The Evolution of Living Organisms (1962), p. 1, 3.
"It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that the famous yucca moth case could result from random mutations." —*Ernst Mayr, Systematics and the Origin of Species, (1942), p. 296.
For additional information see the in-depth study, "9 - Mutations in Action: The Hummingbird."
5 - SIX STRANGE TEACHINGS
SIX STRANGE TEACHINGS OF EVOLUTION—The main text of this chapter on mutations is completed. We should now go on to the next, but before doing so we will here mention six strange sub-hypotheses of the overall theory of evolution:
Because natural selection and mutations are the only two means by which evolution could possibly take place, it seems appropriate at the conclusion of these two chapters to discuss certain underlying teachings of evolutionary thinking. When you buy the theory, you get the whole package.
Evolutionists adamantly declare that the mechanisms by which evolution occurred and are now occurring are (1) natural selection and (2) mutations. Those holding to this position are known as neo-Darwinists.
Summarizing, the few "Darwinists" remaining, still adhere to Darwin's idea that natural selection is the sole mechanism.
The "hopeful monster" advocates pin their hopes solely on sudden, massive mutations, producing total, perfect changeovers to new species all at once. Their view is that a billion-billion mutations occurs every 50,000 years in two newborns—a male and a female—located a short distance apart.
Until the 1930s, the Darwinists were in the majority; thereafter the neo-Darwinists held sway until the early 1980s, when many turned to the hopeful monster view. They recognized that scientific facts about genetics, fossils, and harmful mutations left them little else to turn to.
All evolutionists firmly maintain that the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection and/or mutations) operate in two special modes: (1) they are purposeless, and (2) they are random. Evolutionists are deeply concerned that not the slightest definite purpose be involved in the process, well knowing that if purpose be involved an intelligence would have had to do the planning and executing. All of evolutionary change, they are proud to say, is solely the result of innumerable accidental changes.
On the basis of the two mechanisms and the two modes, what should be the result? only confusion, disorientation, randomness; an ever-failing, useless process.
But the evolutionists fiercely maintain that the mechanisms and modes operate specifically in six ways:
(1) Evolution operates upward, never downward. Although they do not say it that bluntly very often, by this they mean that evolutionary processes always produce positive results, outcomes that are always improvements on what the organism was like previously.
"Natural selection allows the successes, but 'rubs out' the failures. Thus, selection creates complex order, without the need for a designing mind. All of the fancy arguments about a number of improbabilities, having to be swallowed at one gulp, are irrelevant. Selection makes the improbable, actual." —*Michael Ruse, Darwinism Defended (1982), p. 308.
"Natural selection," by evolutionary definition, is random changes, random effects. The evolutionists tell us that these "modify" random mutations (which we know to be always harmful),—and produce "complex order"! But sheer randomness, even if it could produce any order (and randomness never results in order), that very randomness would move both up and down—but evolutionists declare that it always only moves upward.
(2) Evolution operates irreversibly. By this they mean that evolution can only "go in one direction," as they call it. A frog, for example, may evolve into a bird, but by some strange quirky "law" of evolution, the process cannot reverse! A bird will never evolve into a frog, nor will a vertebrate evolve into a worm. A monkey can produce human children, but people will never produce monkeys.
"The still more remarkable fact is that this evolutionary drive to greater and greater order also is irreversible. Evolution does not go backward."— *J.H. Rush, The Dawn of Life (1982), p. 35.
This theory of irreversibility is known as "Dollo's Law. *Dollo first stated it in 1893 in this way:
"An organism is unable to return, even partially, to a previous stage already realized in the ranks of its ancestors." —*Dollo, quoted in "Ammonites Indicate Reversal, "in Nature, March 21, 1970.
*Gerald Smith of the University of Michigan has reported finding "reversals" in the fossil record of Idaho fishes. In his article, he suggests there are many such cases of reversals in the fossil record but that they are considered "anomalies" and not reported. (*Gerald R. Smith, "Fishes of the Pliocene Glenns Ferry Formation, Southwest Idaho, " Papers on Paleontology, No. 14, 1975, published by the University of Michigan Museum of Paleontology.)
*Bjorn Kurten, a Finnish paleontologist, writes about fossil lynxes which lost a tooth, and then regained it. (We are told that some lynxes today have it and some do not.) In commenting on the discovery, Kurten says:
"Even more astonishing is the fact that this seems to be coupled with the re-appearance of M2, a structure unknown in Felidae since the Miocene. All of this, of course, is completely at variance with one of the most cherished principles of evolutionary paleontology, namely Dollo's Law
"This would then be an example of a structure totally lost and then regained in similar form, which is something that simply cannot happen according to Dollo's Law." —*Bjorn Kurten, "Return of a Lost Structure in the Evolution of the Felid Dentition," in Societas Scientiarum Fennica, Commentationes Biologicae, XXVI(4):3 (1963).
Whether or not the tooth disappeared for a time, the species it was in, never changed.
The same serious problem applies to the "irreversibility" claim, as applies to the "always upward" claim: Random mutations modified by random actions ("natural selection" is nothing more than random action) do not operate in one direction only. If you take a deck of cards or a pile of dominos and kick them around awhile, they will not gradually work themselves into a better and still better numerical sequence. Random actions just do not produce such results.
For additional information see "Evolution is Irreversible," in the appendix of chapter 25, Laws of Nature.
(3) Evolution operates from smaller to bigger. . Evolution operates from smaller to bigger. . This particular point is called "Cope's law" by the evolutionists. We here dealing with size. Small creatures are said to always evolve into larger ones, but never into smaller ones. On this basis, evolutionists come up with their "horse series," which we will discuss in the chapter on Evolutionary Showcase.
"Among these, one of the best substantiated is a tendency for increase in size." —*George Gaylord Simpson, The Meaning of Life (1967), p. 132.
But *Olson qualifies it:
"Increase in size is the usual course followed in the evolution of phyletic lines and adaptive radiations. It is, of course, by no means universal." —*E. C. Olson, The Evolution of Life (1965), P. 240.
And elsewhere, *Simpson admits the exceptions:
"Increase in body size is very common, a stock example being the change from eohippus to the modern horse. The phenomenon is perhaps sufficiently usual to be a rule, but the rule has many exceptions. Even in the horse family, several evolving lines became smaller rather than larger. The apparent extent of this rule has been exaggerated by students who thought it absolute and who insisted that because an earlier animal was larger than a later relative therefore it was not ancestral to the latter."- *George Gaylord Simpson, "Evolutionary Determinism and the Fossil Record, " in Scientific Monthly, October 1950, p. 265.
"To whatever extent Copes 'Law' may have applied during the formation of fossiliferous strata, it appears that its trend is now reversed! Practically all modern plants and animals, including man, are represented in the fossil record by larger specimens than are now living (e.g., giant beaver, saber-tooth tiger, mammoth, cave bear, giant bison, etc., etc.) ." —John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris, Genesis Flood (1961), p. 285.
"Since man lived at least 11 times longer before the Flood, the mammals, birds, insects, fish and reptiles lived longer than they do today. Therefore, they were getting larger, heavier, and changing in various ways. Compare a 50 year old elephant to a 200 year-old wooly mammoth. They differ primarily in size, weight, length of tusks and amount of hair.
"These data show a direct relationship that can be explained by how long the elephant and wooly mammoth lived. A giant tortoise can now live as long as 177 years, grow to be 11 feet long and weigh 1,500 pounds; but fossils have been found that are larger than any known size of tortoises today. The difference between a 20 year-old tiger and a 100 year-old saber-tooth tiger is size, age and length of teeth. The dinosaurs were long lived reptiles, changing in size, shape and weight as they lived longer and longer," —Barry Busfield, "Where are the Dinosaurs Now" in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1982, p. 234.
Once again, that same glaring inconsistency shines out: Random actions would not produce an always "smaller to bigger," and never a bigger to smaller. (Much more data on the giant size of earlier forms of life will be found in chapter 17, Fossils and Strata.)
(4) Evolution operates from less complex to more complex. Because of this hypothesis, evolutionists are particularly devastated by the statements of scientists that the forms of life in the Cambrian—the lowest—sedimentary level, are very complex.
"For years evolutionists have been constructing phylogenetic or evolutionary 'family trees' on the basis of the supposed 'one way' character of the fossil record. Using present day specialized forms, they have gone back into the fossil record looking for more generalized ancestors of the present day forms." —Marvin L Lubenow, "Reversals in the Fossil Record, " in Creation Research Society Quarterly, March 1677, p. 186.
The study of random action and random numerical order and operations is known as "probabilities." Any mathematician or student of probabilities will tell you that randomness never (1) works exclusively from less complex ordered designs to more complex ordered designs, and (2) in fact, randomness never produces any complex order of any kind! Random actions only result in disarray and confusion. Randomness ruins, crumbles, and scatters. It never builds, produces better organization, or more involved complexity.
(5) Evolution operates from less perfect to more perfect. This teaching directly clashes with another theory of Darwinists that evolution produces useless organs or "vestiges" (discussed in chapter 22, "Vestiges and Recapitulation").
(6) Evolution is not repeatable. *Patterson declares that evolutionary theory is safe from the prying eye of scientific analysis, for it deals with events "which are unrepeatable."
"If we accept Popper’s distinction between science and non-science, we must ask first whether the theory of evolution by natural selection is scientific or pseudo-scientific (metaphysical) . .Taking the first part of the theory, that evolution has occurred, it says that the history of life is a simple process of species-splitting and progression. This process must be unique and unrepeatable, like the history of England. This part of the theory is therefore a historical theory, about unique events, and unique events are, by definition, not part of science, for they are unrepeatable, and so not subject to test." —*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), pp. 145-146.
*Dobzhansky agreed:
"The evolutionary happenings. . [of paleontology and paleobiology are] unique, unrepeatable, and irreversible." —*T. Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and Anthropology, " in American Scientist 45 (1957), p. 388.
Elsewhere, Patterson again reiterated the past occurrence of evolution, and agreed with Popper that the theory was "metaphysical" and not "scientific."
"So, at present, we are left with neo-Darwinian theory: that evolution has occurred, and has been directed mainly by natural selection, with random contributions from genetic drift, and perhaps the occasional hopeful monster. In this form, the theory is not scientific by Popper's standards. Indeed, Popper calls the theory of evolution not a scientific theory but 'a metaphysical research programme'." —-*Colin Patterson, Evolution (1978), p. 149.
Thus, the experts tell us that there is no evidence for evolution. Yet, if any evidence could be found in defense of the theory, you can be assured the evolutionists would be quick to bring it forward and triumphantly declare their theory to now rank in the category of "science."
Does evolution only deal with "unrepeatable" events? As far as the random evolving of each species is concerned, yes that would be true. Each species is unique and therefore—if evolutionary theory were true—the chance production of each species would indeed be a once-in-forever, non-repeatable occurrence.
But, to the sorrow of the evolutionists, there is more to it than that: For each such species, s series of non-repeatable transitional species leading up to it from the species it evolved out of—should also be found. If evolution is ongoing, and millions of species now exist, the fossil record should provide us with an abundance of evidence for transitional species in the past. We should find them all through the sedimentary strata, for there are millions of distinct fossil species there. We should also see large numbers of the transitional forms alive today. But such is not the case; all we find are separate and distinct species. One of the largest single sections of scientific quotations on a single topic—to be found anywhere in this set of books—deals with admissions by scientists in chapter 17, Fossils and Strata, that there are only distinct species and only gaps between those species in the fossil record. That one (one!) point alone totally annihilates the possibility that biological evolution has occurred on this planet.
We know from genetic and amino acid data in chapter 10, DNA and Protein, that an immense species barrier exists within each species; a barrier which cannot be crossed. But, before the leaving the matter of "unrepeatable," let us consider one more factor:
If random action of harmful mutations and so-called "natural selection" is supposed to be able to produce only ONE of a kind of each type of new species—and never again be able to duplicate the feat,—then NO new species could be produced, for each non-repeatable event task would have to happen TWICE—in order to produce both a male and a female! If that did not occur, the single new species could not breed and reproduce more of its kind.
Evolution reminds us of a giant puzzle, which keeps getting bigger the more we work at it. The more we try to solve the problem, the more there is to solve. It is a never-ending task.
Of course there is a simple solution: just trash the whole theory.
If the above six beliefs of evolutionists are to be accepted as true, then it means that which evolutionists are not willing to openly admit: Natural selection can only operate to improve the organism; mutations can only work to increase the size, complexity, and perfection of the structure. Yet these are obviously contradictions to scientific reality! Although evolutionists do not care to admit it, that is what their complete evolutionary teaching requires!
But, in truth, as we have observed, "natural selection" is nothing more than random reshuffling of the genes within the species in any direction, and "mutations" constitute nothing more than harmful damage to genes and DNA, a damage that is totally unpredictable in its outcome.
When fruit flies are irradiated, the veteran scientists working with them have absolutely no idea what the result will be. Never will an honest geneticist tell you that exposure damage from a typical X-ray irradiation exposure can only result in improvements: (1) bigger fruit flies, (2) more perfect fruit flies, (3) more complex fruit flies, (4) more perfectly functioning fruit flies, or (5) new species which are not fruit flies.
The utter foolishness of evolutionary theory opens up before us as we consider these five requirements governing how it is supposed to operate. Evolutionary theory is truly childish. Only a child below the age of ten would come up with such a set of propositions. It is ridiculous. Marvelous organs—heart, blood vessels, liver, kidney, brain, eyes—that are said to originate only from the random action of extremely harmful mutations, thereafter improved by random accidents called "natural selection."
And then to say that these chance actions must only be permitted to occur along certain directional lines which, by the very nature of randomness, are irrational! The dreamy thinking underlying the speculations of these men is here revealed. It not only is not scientific, it lacks even common horse sense.
Why are such men allowed to coerce all 20th century scientific thought and research into one desperate attempt to prove their silly tales? They consume the time and funding of universities and governments in their frenzied research. They dig into the deepest ocean and fly to outer planets in the hope of proving their point. The truth is that evolution makes gods of the men who decree these ideas. All the world is told to bow down and worship their thinking as though it were infallible. They must be gods. How else can any mere mortal be wise enough to defy the laws of logic and nature, and presume to inerrantly state the outworking of events in the distant past in a manner that is in violation of all law?
Now you know some of the inner teachings of evolution. More will be given to you in chapter 34, Evolution and Society.
CLICK TO ENLARGE
You have just completed
Chapter 14 MUTATIONS Part 2