3 - THE ONE "BENEFICIAL" MUTATION

A long time ago, a mutation occurred in someone in Africa. As do all mutational changes, this one resulted in damage. In this instance, the shape of the red blood cells was changed, from its normal flattened shape, to a quarter-moon shape. Because it tended to cause serious anemia, instead of killing outright, sickle-cell anemia passed into the race and became a recessive factor.

The problem was that, although the blood of a person with sickle-cell anemia does not properly absorb food and oxygen,—that person, oddly enough, will be less likely to acquire malaria from the bite of an anopheles mosquito. As a result, the sickle-cell anemia factor has become widespread in Africa. This is the best example of a "beneficial" mutation that evolutionist scientists are able to offer us.

These carriers have a 50-50 proportion of regular and sickle-cell red blood cells, but 25 percent of their children will have 100 percent sickle-cell RBCs, and will die as a result. The other 75 percent will also be carriers and have the 50-50 proportion of cells.

In sickle-cell anemia, one amino acid in a peptide of nine in a string is faulty. Valine is there instead of glutamic acid. That one change makes all the difference, changing regular hemoglobin into sickle-cell hemoglobin.

We have here a situation much like the peppered moth, discussed early in the last chapter. Each bacteria and virus has its own gene pool, so it can produce a number of varieties. When a certain antibiotic is repeatedly given to people

with tuberculosis, and those people do not take the drug long enough to kill the tubercle bacillus,—opportunity is given for drug-resistant strains of the bacillus to reproduce in great numbers while less-resistant strains are reduced in number. Only occasionally do mutated strains of germs occur, and when they do, they soon die out. More on this later in this chapter.

4 - MUTATIONAL RESEARCH

Later still, fruit flies began to be used in mutational research. What that research revealed—settled the question for all time as to whether evolution could successfully result from mutations. And those little creatures should be able to settle the matter, for it takes only 12 days for a fruit fly to reach maturity; after that it steadily reproduces young. Each of its offspring matures in 12 days, and the generations multiply rapidly. What it would take mammals tens of thousands of years to accomplish, the humble fruit flies can do within a very short time.

We have heard about "the stones crying out" (Luke 19:40). The fossil rocks surely are. Well, the little fruit flies had a testimony to give also.

    CLICK TO ENLARGE

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.

After decades of study, without immediately killing or sterilizing them, 400 different mutational features have been identified in fruit flies. But none changes the fruit fly into a different species.

"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caulery, Genetics and Heredity (1964), p. 119.

The final word: A thousand known fruit-fly mutations placed in one individual—would still not produce a new species!

The obstinate, stubborn little creatures!

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 all that the accelerated research revealed—was the total harmfulness of the mutations. They always injure; they never help.

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.)

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. Now much faster, more thorough work on plant mutations could be obtained.

Of the few mutation-induced changes considered "useful" (change in petal number, loss of color, etc.), all of the plants having them were weaker than their unirradiated 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.

One important discovery that she made was that normal natural selection was not eliminating genetic load, or the gradually increasing negative effect of even the slightest mutations. Natural selection did not, as hopefully predicted by the neo-Darwinian theory, weed out the cumulative bad effects of mutations. This meant that, if it were possible for a species 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.

These hopes were dashed when it was discovered that those variations did not arise because of exposure to antibiotics, but instead occurred spontaneously at a constant rate—regardless of whether or not antibiotics were present.

In regard to the mutated form: Doses of antibiotic reduce the number of 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.

So both normal variants and occasional mutated forms can be involved. *Georghiou explains the resistance of houseflies to DDT and certain other chemicals, a resistance which is parallel to that of resistant bacteria. He says it is due to normal variant strains, not mutated forms:

"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 chemicals 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 lnsecticides," in California Agriculture, 19:8-10.

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 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.

First, *Charles Darwin’s theory that evolution resulted from natural selection had to be abandoned. By the early 20th century, it was obvious that scientific evidence did not exist for species change by natural selection. But, in those first decades of the century, the new science of mutation research had begun. So upon the ashes of the theory known as "Darwinism," arose "neo-Darwinism"—which proclaimed that evolutionary change from one kind to another was accomplished through mutations, with later refinements effected by natural selection. But, within a few decades of mutation research on millions of generations of fruit flies, competent geneticists began abandoning it.

Publicly, most evolutionist scientists call themselves neo-Darwinists, but privately they are in a quandary. The evidence that you are reading in this and the previous chapter (on natural selection), which so thoroughly destroys the basis for evolution, is already known to a majority of confirmed evolutionists.

The future indeed looks bleak for their theory, but they continue to make a brave front; and, through various national organizations, they continue to demand that evolution alone be taught in public schools and accredited colleges and universities.

(Clarification: Even though a majority of evolutionist scientists today lean toward saltation [discussed below], yet it too is based on mutations. Therefore they can all be called "neo-Darwinists.")

5 - MAMMOTH MUTATION THEORY

So, in desperation, *Goldschmidt proposed his "saltation theory," in which no transitional forms would be necessary. ("Saltation" means "sudden leap" in German.)

According to this theory, all evolution occurred by immense mutational leaps from one life form to another. The strange theory goes something like this:

Every so often a mammoth collection of billions of random mutations occurred all at once—and produced a totally new species. For example, two rabbits produced a male baby skunk and, coincidentally, just over the hill two other rabbits (or some other kind of creature) produced a female skunk! Both baby skunks were able to get enough milk from their mother rabbits so that they grew to maturity and produced all the skunks in the world. That is how the skunks 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. This is truly desperation in the extreme.

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.

*Richard Goldschmidt was a veteran genetics researcher, and the fruit flies taught him enough lessons that *Goldschmidt totally gave up on the possibility that one-by-one mutations could accomplish the task of evolution. But the truth is that there are no other kinds of mutations!

No mammoth mutations can or would occur. None occurred at Hiroshima, Nagasaki, or Chernobyl. Yet, in regard to a number of mutations suddenly occurring, they are the monster mutation capitals of the world. They did not occur 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, with all its laboratory and nuclear radiation, has been the century—above all others—for new species to arise. But it has not happened.

All the fossils were distinct species, with no halfway species included. 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 his May 1977 article, *Gould opened up this entire problem—and said 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, and (according to *Gould) about 50,000 years will have elapsed since the previous massive mutated creature,—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) Therefore it is not happening now. (That is why *Gould added the "50,000 years" item.)

*Richard Goldschmidt called them "hopeful monsters." *Stephan Gould later named the process "punctuated equilibrium." Shortly after that, his friend *Steven Stanley gave it the name, "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 multi-billion positive mutational features is really no solution to the crisis that evolution finds itself in. The very theory reveals the depth of desperation on the part of men who know of no other way to prove the impossible.

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!

Actual "monsters" (which are always hideous) may occasionally occur, but they die out within one generation. *Mayr, another well-known evolutionist, calls these monsters not "hopeful," but "hopeless."

Scientists recognize that *Steven Jay Gould’s massive mutational change idea would be an impossibility.

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.

"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].

The occasional mutations which occur always produce serious problems. But these are so weakening, that the organism or its offspring are soon weeded out. If mutations only produce negative effects, and natural selection only removes negative effects—how can evolution result?

"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), pp. 1, 3.

6 - AN EVOLUTIONIST’S PARADISE

Some might say that there has not been enough time for such paradises to propagate new species, but it is well-known among thinking scientists that new species would have to be rapidly produced or they would die. Living organisms are far too complicated to live long with only part of their revised organs in place. So there definitely has been enough time!

It was a beautiful morning with not a cloud in the sky. The date was August 6, 1945, the time 8:00 a.m. A single plane was in the sky. Then its bomb-bay doors opened.

The living were worse off than the dead, for radiation poured into their bodies from the explosion and the after-radiation cloud. The name the Japanese gave to the miserable survivors was hibakusha. These poor creatures struggled with radiation-damaged bodies through the remainder of their shortened lives. Researchers studied them for decades; not one of them evolved into a different species or a new super race.

At 1:24 a.m., local time, on April 26, 1986, one or two explosions rocked the plant and blew apart reactor No. 4—and produced the worst nuclear plant accident in modern history. The blast(s) tore off a thousand-ton lid resting on the reactor core and tore a hole in the building’s side and roof. Several tons of uranium dioxide fuel and fision products, such as cesium 137 and iodine 131, were hurled into the air. The explosion and heat sent up a 3-mile (5-km) plume of smoke laden with contaminants.

By Soviet accounts, 50 megacuries of the most dangerous radionuclides were released into the atmosphere, plus 50 megacuries of chemically inert radioactive gases. (In comparison, 17 curies were released in the Three Mile Island accident in Pennsylvania in 1979.)

With four working reactors and two more being built, Chernobyl was destined to be one of the most powerful nuclear power stations in the Soviet Union. Located in the heart of some of the best agricultural regions of the nation, a sizeable population lived in towns, cities, and communes on all sides of it.

Within ten days, clouds of deadly irradiated dust traveled northwest over Poland and into Scandinavia, and thence south to Greece, spreading contaminates throughout Eastern Europe. Then it blew eastward over the length of the Soviet Union, and a small amount of it even reached California (*"Chernobyl: One Year After," National Geographic, May 1987).

Soon after the Chernobyl meltdown in 1986, Soviet officials ordered the permanent evacuation of all villages within 19 miles [30.6 km] of the power plant. What they did not immediately recognize was that heavy nuclear fallout covered a much broader area. In some parts of Narodichi, a Ukrainian agricultural district whose boundaries lie some 37 miles [59.5 km] from the reactor, levels of radioactivity are still nine times as high as the acceptable limits.

Apri1 27, 1990, news report: Three years and one day after the nuclear meltdown at Chernobyl, 800,000 children in the Byelorussian Province of the Soviet Union, located north of Chernobyl, urgently need medical treatment as a result of the radiation received from that accident.

What about the plants and animals? A spring 1990 study, done 3 years after the meltdown by the chief economist of a Soviet government institute, calculates that the cost of Chernobyl including the price of the cleanup and the value of lost farmland and production, could run as high as $358 billion—20 times as much as earlier official estimates.

Did this mutational paradise help the plants? No fabulously new crops have been produced. Instead, the entire farm crop situation was terribly worsened. Plants sickened and died. Plants continue to sicken and die.

Did this mutational paradise help the livestock? Because the radiation cloud from the 1987 meltdown went into the very soil, every passing year brings more and more birth defects among farm animals. Colts with eight limbs, deformed lower jaws, and disjointed spinal columns have been born. The Yun Gagarin collective farm in Vyazovka has produced 197 freak calves. Some of the animals had no eyes, deformed skulls, and distorted mouths. At a farm in Malinovka, about 200 pigs, damaged in one way or another, have been born since the accident. We are viewing an evolutionist’s paradise in action!

But not only externally observed changes have occurred, internal organs are, on an ongoing basis, being damaged also. This is regularly producing fetal abortions, stillbirths, and infant deaths among the animals.

What about the people? From Fall 1988 to Spring 1999, there has begun a dramatic rise in thyroid disease, anemia, and cancer. Residents are complaining of fatigue, as well as loss of vision and appetite. An astounding drop in the immunity level of the entire population in that region has occurred. People have a difficult time recovering from the simplest infection, and children are affected even more than grownups.

The poisoning of the land by radiation has caused dire health problems. The radiation affects non-genetic tissue; and within reproductive cells it causes mutations in the DNA, which produce deformed or dead offspring.

And what about those new species? Not one has occurred. No new species have come into existence. No furry creatures have hatched from eggs. The species there are the same ones that have always been there; only now they are damaged and dying.

Ironically, we know so much about this because of the dedicated efforts of Igor Kostin, the first man to photograph the Chernobyl accident from the air. Since 1987, he returned to the reactor six times and has spent hundreds of hours in the Chernobyl area, and traveled extensively throughout the regions surrounding it, documenting the ongoing tragedy on film for the world. But his heroic efforts to make that information available damaged his own body. Exposed to 5 times the acceptable level of radiation, he became constantly tired and sometimes had trouble walking. But he kept leaving his home, in Kiev, and journeying to Chernobyl, so the world can know what is happening there. He died in the 1990s.

News report, April 1991: A Soviet government ministry announced that instead of an official "37 people" who have died as a result of the Chernobyl accident, the figure approximates 10,000 deaths to date.

7 - SUMMARIZING EVOLUTION

THREE TYPES OF EVOLUTIONISTS—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.

Darwinists adhere to *Darwin’s idea that natural selection is the sole mechanism (although in a later book, *Darwin rejected it—and returned to Lamarckism, the inheritance of acquired characteristics).

Neo-Darwinists declare that the mechanisms by which evolution occurred and are now occurring are mutations, which are then refined by natural selection.

Hopeful monster advocates pin their hopes on sudden, massive mutations, producing a new species all at once. Their view is that a billion-billion beneficial mutations occur 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.

(1) Evolution operates in a purposeless manner. The mechanisms must be purposeless. Otherwise they would indicate an Intelligence at work, and evolutionists fear to consider this possibility.

(2) Evolution operates in a random manner. Anything can happen, and in any possible way. Once again, there must be no intimation of Intelligence at work.

(3) 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.

(4) 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. It is indeed strange how the evolutionists’ random actions can only go in a certain direction!

This theory of irreversibility is known as Dollo’s Law. *Dollo first stated it in 1893 in this way:

*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).

*Bjom Kurten, a Finnish paleontologist, writes about fossil lynxes, which lost a tooth, and then regained it. (We are elsewhere told that some lynxes today have it and some do not.) In commenting on the discovery, Kurten says:

Whether or not the tooth disappeared for a time, the species it was in never changed.

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.

(5) Evolution operates from smaller to bigger. This particular point is called Cope’s law by the evolutionists. We are here dealing with size. Small creatures are said to always evolve into larger ones, but never into smaller ones. On this basis, evolutionists came up with their "horse series," which we will discuss in chapter 17, Evolutionary Showcase.

But any paleontologist can tell you that fossils were often much larger in the past than they are today. For example, sharks; but, of course, they were still sharks.

(6) 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 1977, p. 186.

We will learn later that in the lowest layer of strata (the Cambrian), laid down by the Flood, was buried a wide variety of complex creatures. Below the Cambrian, there are no life forms.

(7) Evolution operates from less perfect to more perfect. This teaching directly clashes with another theory of Darwinists, that evolution produces useless organs or "vestiges" (see chapter 16, "Vestiges and Recapitulation").

(8) 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."

*Dobzhansky, another resolute evolutionist, 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.

SCIENTISTS SAY IT IS NOT SCIENTIFIC—Elsewhere, *Patterson again reiterated the past occurrence of evolution, and agreed with *Karl Popper (the leading evolutionist philosopher of the twentieth century) that the theory was "metaphysical" and not "scientific." They tell the public that evolution is "scientific," but among themselves, they admit it is something quite different.

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."

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.

"Throughout the past century there has always existed a significant minority of first-rate biologists who have never been able to bring themselves to accept the validity of Darwinian claims. In fact, the number of biologists who have expressed some degree of disillusionment is practically endless."—*Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1986), p. 327.

EVOLUTION COULD NOT DO THIS

GRADES 5 TO 12 ON A GRADUATED SCALE

1 - A good definition of natural selection would be "random action." Why would "harmful genetic change" be a good definition of a mutation?

2 - Explain each of the four primary qualities of mutations. If mutations only had one of those four qualities, could they still produce cross-species evolution?

3 - There is a lot of hopeful talk in evolutionary circles about "good mutations." Have scientists found a single really beneficial mutation?

4 - Why are mutations likened to automobile accidents?

5 - Briefly explain the difference between Darwinian evolution and neo-Darwinian evolution.

6 - Mutations are accidents that are random. Can the random aspect help the accidents improve the organism receiving the mutation?

7 - A human body is a complicated mechanism, so is a television set. From the standpoint of delicate interrelationships, all of which must work efficiently for the entire system to function properly, why is inserting a mutation into a person similar to hitting a TV set with a hammer or changing one of its wires?

8 - Do random mutations provide the proper additional information for the DNA to effectively use them?

9 - Write a brief report on the sickle-cell anemia problem and why it is not really beneficial.

10 - Why do the decades of fruit fly research clearly show that mutations could not produce beneficial improvements, much less new species?

11- Why did the Benzar discovery definitely establish the 100 percent harmfulness of mutations?

12 - Write a report on why the hopeful monster theory could not be correct. Explain several specific problems confronting the theory.

13 - Select two of the six strange teachings of evolution, and explain why they are so amazingly imaginative and could not succeed in reality.