Evolution Cruncher Chapter 10
produce cross-species change
This chapter is based on pp. 393-459 of
Origin of the Life (Volume Two of our three-volume Evolution Disproved
Series). Not included in this chapter are at least 134 statements by
scientists. You will find them, plus much more, in the encyclopedia on
A mutation is damage to a single DNA
unit (a gene). If it occurs in a somatic (body) gene, it only injures
the individual; but if to a gametic (reproductive) gene, it will be
passed on to his descendants.
Mutations rank equally with fossils and
natural selection as the three most important aspects of life evolution.
Fossil evidence in the sedimentary rock
strata is supposed to provide evidence that species evolution has
occurred in the past, and natural selection and mutations are the only
means (mechanisms) by which it could occur.
In the chapter on Fossils and Strata, we
will learn that there is simply no evidence that evolution of life-forms
has ever occurred in the past. In the chapter on Natural Selection, we
learned that the accidental gene reshuffling (which evolutionists call
"natural selection") can indeed produce changes within
species—but are totally incapable of producing different species.
So that brings us to mutations. The
study of mutations is crucial! It is all that the evolutionists have
left! If mutations cannot produce evolution, then nothing can.
In this chapter you will learn that, far
from being beneficial, mutations constitute something terrible that ruin
and destroy organisms, either in the first generation or soon
thereafter. Not only is it impossible for mutations to cause the
evolutionary process,—they weaken or terminate the life process! The
reason we all fear radiation is because they are a powerful means of
producing mutations that irreparably damage our bodies.
THE LAST HOPE—It is well-known among
many knowledgeable scientists that if evolution could possibly occur,
mutations would have to accomplish it. There simply is no other
mechanism that can make changes within the DNA. Natural selection has
consistently failed, so mutations are the last hope of a majority of the
"It must not be forgotten that
mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in
natural populations and the only new material available for natural
selection to work upon."—*E. Mayr, Populations, Species and
Evolution (1970), p. 103.
"The process of mutation is the
only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence
of evolution."—*T. Dobzansky in American Scientist, 45 (1957), p.
Yet they have not been able to provide
proof that mutations produce evolution.
"The complete proof of the
utilization of mutations in evolution under natural conditions has not
yet been given."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution, the Modern Synthesis,
pp. 183 and 205.
OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATION—Mutations
generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or
chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2)
gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change
in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the
cause, the result is a change in genetic information.
Here are some basic hurdles that
scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for
evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must
be beneficial—at least sometimes. (3) They must effect a dramatic
enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive
changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small
changes will only damage or destroy the organism.
NEO-DARWINISM—(*#1/25 What the Public
is not Told*) When *Charles Darwin wrote Origin of the Species, he based
evolutionary transitions on natural selection. In his book, he gave many
examples of this, but all his examples were merely changes within the
Since then, scientists have diligently
searched for examples—past or present—of natural selection changes
beyond that of basic plant and animal types, but without success. For
example, they cite several different horses—from miniatures to large
workhorses to zebras,—but all are still horses.
Finding that so-called "natural
selection" accomplished no evolutionary changes, modern
evolutionists moved away from Darwinism into neo-Darwinism. This is the
revised teaching that it is mutations plus natural selection (not
natural selection alone) which have produced all life-forms on Planet
"Evolution is, to put it simply,
the result of natural selection working on random mutations."—*M.
Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.
Neo-Darwinists speculate that mutations
accomplished all cross-species changes, and then natural selection
afterward refined them. This, of course, assumes that mutations and
natural selection are positive and purposive.
1 - FOUR SPECIAL PROBLEMS
In reality, mutations have four special
qualities that are ruinous to the hopes of evolutionists:
(1) RARE EFFECTS—Mutations are very
rare. This point is not a guess but an scientific fact, observed by
experts in the field. Their very rarity dooms the possibility of
mutational evolution to oblivion.
"It is probably fair to estimate
the frequency of a majority of mutations in higher organisms between one
in ten thousand and one in a million per gene per generation."—*F.J.
Ayala, "Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology," in
Philosophy of Science, March 1970, p. 3.
Mutations are simply too rare to have
produced all the necessary traits of even one life-form, much less all
the creatures that swarm on the earth.
Evolution requires millions upon
millions of direct, solid changes, yet mutations occur only with great
"Although mutation is the ultimate
source of all genetic variation, it is a relatively rare
event."—*F.J. Ayala, "Mechanism of Evolution,"
Scientific American, September 1978, p. 63.
(2) RANDOM EFFECTS—Mutations are
always random, and never purposive or directed. This has repeatedly been
observed in actual experimentation with mutations.
"It remains true to say that we
know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary
variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection
by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one
generation to the next."—*C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life
(1962), p. 98.
*Eden declares that the factor of
randomness in mutations ruins their usefulness as a means of evolution.
"It is our contention that if
‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a
probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly
implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must
await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws."—*Murray
Eden, "Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as Scientific
Theory," in Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Theory of
Evolution (1967), p. 109.
Mutations are random, wild events that
are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance
occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can
predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new
type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments
that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit
flies and other small creatures.
Evolution requires purposive changes.
Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is
needed for organic evolution.
(3) NOT HELPFUL—Evolution requires
improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and
"But mutations are found to be of a
random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the
great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in
some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental
occurrences."—*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic
Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.
(4) HARMFUL EFFECTS—(*#2/21 Mutations
are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most
instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that
it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.
As mentioned earlier, scientists turned
to neo-Darwinism in the hope that it could do that which Darwinism could
not do. The man more responsible than any other for getting scientists
on the neo-Darwinian bandwagon was *Julian Huxley. But in his writings,
even he knew he was on thin ice:
"A proportion of favorable
mutations of one in a thousand does not sound much, but is probably
generous, since so many mutations are lethal, preventing the organism
from living at all, and the great majority of the rest throw the
machinery slightly out of gear."—*Julian Huxley, Evolution in
Action, p. 41.
Elsewhere in the same book, he admitted
"One would expect that any
interference with such a complicated piece of chemical machinery as the
genetic constitution would result in damage. And, intact, this is so:
the great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effects on the
organism."—*Julian Huxley, op. cit., p. 137.
So there you have it: four special facts
about mutations that demolish any possibility that they could mutate
even one species into another, much less produce all the species in the
Mutations are rare, random, almost never
an improvement, always weakening or harmful, and often fatal to the
organism or its offspring.
MILLIONS OF MUTATIONAL EXPERIMENTS—At
this point, you might ask, "How can we be certain of such facts
about mutations if they are so rare?" That is a good question.
The answer is this: Although mutations
only occur with extreme infrequence in nature, in the laboratory
researchers have learned how to produce mutations at will. The usual
method is radiation, but certain chemicals can accomplish it also. A
sufficient amount of X-rays applied to the genes of the germ cells of an
organism will produce mutations in its offspring. As a result, research
geneticists have had the opportunity to study the effects of hundreds of
thousands of mutations, on millions of generations of certain creatures.
More on this later in this chapter.
BASIS OF EVOLUTION—Modern evolutionary
theory, from the mid-twentieth century onward, is based on the idea that
mutations plus natural selection, plus time can produce most wonderful
changes in all living creatures. And this has been responsible for all
the astounding faculties and complicated organs that we see in plants
Since DNA in the cell is the blueprint
of the form that life will take, it does at first seem reasonable to
assume that if the blueprint could be changed, the life-form might
Capitalizing on the theme, evolutionists
explain in their textbooks that it is mutations that have provided us
with the millions of beneficial features in every species in the world.
All that is needed is time and lots of random, mutational changes in the
DNA code, and soon myriads of outstanding life-forms will emerge.
Evolutionists also tell us that
mutations will wonderfully adapt us to our environmental needs. *Carl
Sagan, a leading scientist and science fiction writer, says that we have
no creatures that move about on wheels on Planet Earth only because it
is too bumpy!
"We can very well imagine another
planet with enormous long stretches of smooth lava fields in which
wheeled organisms are abundant."—*Carl Sagan, The Cosmic
Connection, p. 42.
Sagan’s idea of people sprouting
wheels instead of legs because they live on flat ground is about as
humorous as lava fields that are generally smooth and level.
We have already mentioned four facts
about mutations: (1) They are extremely rare. (2) They are only random
in what they do. (3) They are never really beneficial. (4) They are
harmful or lethal. But now the situation gets worse.
2 - TWENTY-EIGHT REASONS
Here are 28 reasons why it is not
possible for mutations to produce species evolution:
1 - NOT ONCE—Hundreds of thousands of
mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the
possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT
ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial
mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of
latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was
permanent, passing on from one generation to another!
Read the above paragraph over a couple
times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists
have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had
permanent effects in offspring—then how could mutations result in
"Mutations are more than just
sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep
living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it
adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact
show that mutations are really assaults on the organism’s central
being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?"—*C.P. Martin,
"A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist,
2 - ONLY HARM—The problem here is that
those organisms which mutations do not outright kill are generally so
weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then,
work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth
would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished.
This gradual buildup of harmful
mutations in the genes is called genetic load.
"The large majority of mutations,
however, are harmful or even lethal to the individual in whom they are
expressed. Such mutations can be regarded as introducing a ‘load,’
or genetic burden, into the [DNA] pool. The term ‘genetic load’ was
first used by the late H.J. Muller, who recognized that the rate of
mutations is increased by numerous agents man has introduced into his
environment, notably ionizing radiation and mutagenic
chemicals."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic Load," in
Scientific American, March 1970, p. 98.
3 - USUALLY ELIMINATE—Because of their
intrinsic nature, mutations greatly weaken the organism; so much so that
if that organism survives, its descendants will tend to die out.
The result is a weeding-out process.
Contrary to the hopes of the neo-Darwinians, natural selection does not
enhance the effects of the mutation. Natural selection eliminates
mutations by killing off the organism bearing them!
"After a greater or lesser number
of generations the mutants are eliminated."—*G. Ledyard Stebbins,
Processes of Organic Evolution (1971), pp. 24-25.
"If one allows the unquestionably
largest experimenter to speak,—namely nature, one gets a dear and
incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of
mutations for the formation of species and evolution. They disappear
under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles
burst in a breeze."—*Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung, p.
4 - MUTAGENS—It is a well-known fact
that scientists have for decades been urging the removal of radiation
hazards and mutagenic chemicals (scientists call them mutagens) because
of the increasing damage mutations are doing to people, animals, and
It is time that the evolutionists, who
praise the value of mutations, admit very real facts. How can such
terrible curses, which is what mutations are, improve and beautify the
race—and produce by random action all the complex structures and
actions of life?
If scientists really believed in
mutations as the great improvers of the race, they would ask that more,
not less, mutagenic radiations might be given to plant and animal life!
But they well-know that mutations are extremely dangerous. Who is that
confirmed neo-Darwinist who is willing to let his own body be irradiated
with X-rays for minutes at a time, so that his offspring might
"The most important actions that
need to be taken, however, are in the area of minimizing the addition of
new mutagens to those already present in the environment. Any increase
in the mutational load is harmful, if not immediately, then certainly to
future generations."—*Christopher Wills, "Genetic
Load," in Scientific American, March 1970, p. 107.
5 - DANGEROUS ACCIDENTS—How often do
accidents help you? What is the likelihood that the next car accident
you have will make you feel better than you did before?
Because of their random nature and
negative effects, mutations would destroy all life on earth, were it not
for the fact that in nature they rarely occur.
"An accident, a random change, in
any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a
stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will
seldom make it work better."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and
the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126. [Dobzhansky is a geneticist.]
Actually, a significant part of the
grave danger in mutations is their very randomness! A mutation is a
chance accident to the genes or chromosomes.
"We could still be sure on
theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a
mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably
smooth-functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated
system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to
impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a
television set is not likely to improve the picture."—*J.F. Crow,
"Genetic Effects of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.
Referring to the harmful effects of
mutations, *Bullock concludes:
"Such results are to be expected of
accidental changes occurring in any complicated
organization."—*Helen Bullock, "Crusade to Unravel Life’s
Mystery," The Toronto Star, December 19, 1981, p. A13.
6 - INTERTWINED CATASTROPHE—A new
reason why mutations are so insidious has only recently been discovered.
Geneticists discovered the answer in the genes. Instead of a certain
characteristic being controlled by a certain gene, it is now known that
each gene affects many characteristics, and each characteristic is
affected by many genes! We have here a complicated interweaving of
genetic-characteristic relationships never before imagined possible!
Touch such a delicate system with
mutations and you produce interlocking havoc.
7 - ONLY RANDOM EFFECTS—So far in this
chapter, we have tended to ignore the factor of random results. What if
mutations were plentiful and always with positive results, but still
random as they now are? They would still be useless.
Even assuming mutations could produce
those complex structures called feathers, birds would have wings on
their stomachs, where they could not use them, or the wings would be
upside down, without lightweight feathers, and under- or oversized.
Most animals would have no eyes, some
would have one, and those that had any eyes would have them under their
armpits or on the soles of their feet.
The random effects of mutations would
annihilate any value they might otherwise provide.
8 - ALL AFFECTED—Mutations tend to
have a widespread effect on the genes.
"Moreover, despite the fact that a
mutation is a discrete, discontinuous effect of the cellular, chromosome
or gene level, its effects are modified by interactions in the whole
genetic system of an individual . . Every character of an organism is
affected by all genes, and every gene affects all other characters. It
is this interaction that accounts for the closely knit functional
integration of the genotype as a whole."—*Ernst Mayr,
Populations, Species, and Evolution, p. 164 [emphasis his].
Each mutation takes its toll on large
numbers—even all the genes, directly or indirectly; and since 99
percent of the mutations are harmful and appear in totally random areas,
they could not possibly bring about the incredible life-forms we find
all about us.
Since each altered characteristic
requires the combined effort of many genes, it is obvious that many
genes would have to be mutated in a GOOD way to accomplish anything
worthwhile. But almost no mutations are ever helpful.
More generations of fruit flies have
been experimented on for mutational effects than mankind could have
lived for millions of years! This is due to the fact that a fruit fly
produces "a new generation" in a few short hours; whereas a
human generation requires 18-40 years, and researchers in many locations
have been breeding fruit flies for 80 years.
Thousands and thousands of generations
of fruit flies have been irradiated in the hope of producing worthwhile
mutations. But only damage and death has resulted.
"Most mutants which arise in any
organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The
classical mutants obtained in Drosophila [fruit fly] show deterioration,
breakdown, and disappearance of some organs."—*Dobzhansky,
Evolution, Genetics and Man (1955), p. 105.
9 - LIKE THROWING ROCKS—Trying to
accomplish evolution with random, accidental, harmful mutations is like
trying to improve a television set by throwing rocks at it (although I
will admit that may be one of the best ways to improve the benefit you
receive from your television set).
*H.J. Muller won a Nobel prize for his
work in genetics and mutations. In his time, he was considered a world
leader in genetics research. Here is how he describes the problem:
"It is entirely in line with the
accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in
showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job
of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced
into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful
operation . . Good ones are so rare that we can consider them all
bad."—*H.J. Muller, "How Radiation Changes the Genetic
Constitution," in Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 11(1955), p. 331.
10 - MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE—(*#3/9
Math on Mutations*) Fortunately mutations are rare. They normally occur
on an average of perhaps once in every ten million duplications of a DNA
Even assuming that all mutations were
beneficial—in order for evolution to begin to occur in even a small
way, it would be necessary to have, not just one, but a SERIES of
closely related and interlocking mutations—all occurring at the same
time in the same organism!
The odds of getting two mutations that
are in some slight manner related to one another is the product of two
separate mutations: ten million times ten million, or a hundred
trillion. That is a 1 followed by 14 zeros (in scientific notation
written as 1 x 1014). What can two mutations accomplish? Perhaps a
honeybee with a wavy edge on a bent wing. But he is still a honeybee; he
has not changed from one species to another.
More related mutations would be needed.
Three mutations in a sequence would be a billion trillion (1 with 21
zeros). But that would not begin to do what would be needed. Four
mutations, that were simultaneous or sequentially related, would be 1
with 28 zeros after it (1 x 1028). But all the earth could not hold
enough organisms to make that possibility come true. And four mutations
together does not even begin to produce real evolution. Millions upon
millions of harmonious, beneficial characteristics would be needed to
transform one species into another.
But ALL those simultaneous mutations
would have to be beneficial; whereas, in real life, mutations very
rarely occur and they are almost always harmful.
(By the way, you would need to produce
all those multi-mutations in a mated pair, so they could properly
produce young. Otherwise it would be like mating a donkey and a
horse—and getting a sterile offspring.)
"The mass of evidence shows that
all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and
the few remaining ones are highly suspect . . All mutations seem to be
of the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and
viability of the affected organism."—*C.P. Martin, "A
Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, 41
(1953), p. 103.
Evolution cannot succeed without
mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an
impossibility, and that’s it.
11 - TIME IS NO SOLUTION—But someone
will say, "Well, it can be done—if given enough time."
Evolutionists offer us 5 billion years for mutations to do the job of
producing all the wonders of nature that you see about you. But 5
billion years is, in seconds, only 1 with 17 zeros (1 X 1017) after it.
And the whole universe only contains 1 X 1080 atomic particles. So there
is no possible way that all the universe and all time past could produce
such odds as would be needed for the task! *Julian Huxley, the leading
evolutionary spokesman of mid-twentieth century, said it would take 103000 changes to produce just one horse by evolution. That is 1 with
3000 zeros after it! (*Julian Huxley, Evolution in Action, p. 46).
Evolution requires millions of
beneficial mutations all working closely together to produce delicate
living systems full of fine-tuned structures, organs, hormones, and all
the rest. And all those mutations would have to be non-random and
intelligently planned! In no other way could they accomplish the needed
But, leaving the fairyland of
evolutionary theory, to the real world, which only has rare, random, and
harmful mutations, we must admit that mutations simply cannot do the
And there is no other way that
life-forms could invent and reinvent themselves by means of that
mythical process called "evolution."
"A majority of mutations, both
those arising in laboratories and those stored in natural populations
produce deteriorations of the viability, hereditary disease and
monstrosities. Such changes it would seem, can hardly serve as
evolutionary building blocks."—*T. Dobzhansky, Genetics and the
Origin of Species (1955), p. 73.
12 - GENE STABILITY—It is the very
rarity of mutations that guarantees the stability of the genes. Because
of that, the fossils of ancient plants and animals are able to look like
those living today.
"Mutations rarely occur. Most genes
mutate only once in 100,000 generations or more." "Researchers
estimate that a human gene may remain stable for 2,500,000
years."—*World Book Encyclopedia, 1966 Edition.
"Living things are enormously
diverse in form, but form is remarkably constant within any given line
of descent: pigs remain pigs and oak trees remain oak trees generation
after generation."—*Edouard Kellenberger, "The Genetic
Control of the Shape of a Virus," in Scientific American, December
1966, p. 32.
13 - AGAINST ALL LAW—After spending
years studying mutations, *Michael Denton, an Australian research
geneticist, finalized on the matter this way:
"If complex computer programs
cannot be changed by random mechanisms, then surely the same must apply
to the genetic programs of living organisms.
"The fact that systems [such as
advanced computers], in every way analogous to living organisms, cannot
undergo evolution by pure trial and error [by mutation and natural
selection] and that their functional distribution invariably conforms to
an improbable discontinuum comes, in my opinion, very close to a formal
disproof of the whole Darwinian paradigm of nature. By what strange
capacity do living organisms defy the laws of chance which are
apparently obeyed by all analogous complex systems?"—*Michael
Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 342.
14 - SYNTROPY—This principle was
mentioned in the chapter on Natural Selection; it belongs here also.
*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi is a brilliant Hungarian scientist who has won two
Nobel Prizes (1937 and 1955) for his research. In 1977, he developed a
theory which he called syntropy. *Szent-Gyorgyi points out that it would
be impossible for any organism to survive even for a moment, unless it
was already complete with all of its functions and they were all working
perfectly or nearly so. This principle rules out the possibility of
evolution arising by the accidental effects of natural selection or the
chance results of mutations. It is an important point.
"In postulating his theory of
syntropy, Szent-Gyorgyi, perhaps unintentionally, brings forth one of
the strongest arguments for Creationism—the fact that a body organ is
useless until it is completely perfected. The hypothesized law of
‘survival of the fittest’ would generally select against any
mutations until a large number of mutations have already occurred to
produce a complete and functional structure; after which natural
selection would then theoretically select for the organism with the
completed organ."—Jerry Bergman, "Albert Szent-Gyorgyi’s
Theory of Syntropy," in Up with Creation (1978), p. 337.
15 - MINOR CHANGES DAMAGE OFFSPRING THE
MOST—With painstaking care, geneticists have studied mutations for
decades. An interesting feature of these accidents in the genes, called
mutations, deals a stunning blow to the hopes of neo-Darwinists. Here,
in brief, is the problem:
(1) Most mutations have very small
effects; some have larger ones. (2) Small mutations cannot accomplish
the needed task, for they cannot produce evolutionary changes. Only
major mutational changes, with wide-ranging effects in an organism, can
possibly hope to effect the needed changes from one species to another.
And now for the new discovery: (3) It is
only the minor mutational changes which harm one’s descendants. The
major ones kill the organism outright or rather quickly annihilate its
"One might think that mutants that
cause only a minor impairment are unimportant, but this is not true for
the following reason: A mutant that is very harmful usually causes early
death or senility. Thus the mutant gene is quickly eliminated from the
population . . Since minor mutations can thus cause as much harm in the
long run as a major ones, and occur much more frequently, it follows
that most of the mutational damage in a population is due to the
accumulation of minor changes."—*J.F. Crow, "Genetic Effects
of Radiation," in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, January 1958,
"The probabilities that a mutation
will survive or eventually spread in the course of evolution tend to
vary inversely with the extent of its somatic effects. Most mutations
with large effects are lethal at an early stage for the individual in
which they occur and hence have zero probability of spreading. Mutations
with small effects do have some probability of spreading and as a rule
the chances are better the smaller the effect."—*George Gaylord
Simpson, "Uniformitarianism: An Inquiry into Principle Theory and
Method in Geohistory and Biohistory," Chapter 2; in *Max Hecht and
*William C. Steeres, ed., Essays in Evolution and Genetics (1970), p.
16 - WOULD HAVE TO DO IT IN ONE
GENERATION—Not even one major mutation, affecting a large number of
organic factors, could accomplish the task of taking an organism across
the species barrier. Hundreds of mutations—all positive ones,—and
all working together would be needed to produce a new species. The
reason: The formation of even one new species would have to be done all
at once—in a single generation!
"Since Lamarck’s theory [acquired
characteristics] has been proved false, it is only of historical
interest. Darwin’s theory [natural selection] does not satisfactorily
explain the origin and inheritance of variations . . deVries’ theory
[large mutations, or hopeful monsters"] has been shown to be weak
because no single mutation or set of mutations has ever been so large
that it has been known to start a new species in one generation of
offspring."—*Mark A. Hall and *Milton S. Lesser, Review Text in
Biology, (1966), p. 363.
17 - INCONSEQUENTIAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS—A
major problem here is that, on one hand, mutations are damaging and
deadly; but on the other,—aside from the damage—they only directly
change small features.
"Is it really certain, then, as the
neo-Darwinists maintain, that the problem of evolution is a settled
matter? I, personally, do not think so, and, along with a good many
others, I must insist on raising some banal objections to the doctrine
of neo-Darwinism . .
"The mutations which we know and
which are considered responsible for the creation of the living world
are, in general, either organic deprivations, deficiencies (loss of
pigment, loss of an appendage), or the doubling of the pre-existing
organs. In any case, they never produce anything really new or original
in the organic scheme, nothing which one might consider the basis for a
new organ or the priming for a new function."—*Jean Rostand, The
Orion Book of Evolution (1961), p. 79.
*Richard Goldschmidt was the geneticist
who first proposed miraculous multimillion, beneficial mutations as the
only possible cause of species crossover. (More on this later.) This is
what he wrote about the inconsequential nature of individual mutations:
"Such an assumption [that little
mutations here and there can gradually, over several generations,
produce a new species] is violently opposed by the majority of
geneticists, who claim that the facts found on the subspecific level
must apply also to the higher categories. Incessant repetition of this
unproved claim, glossing lightly over the difficulties, and the
assumption of an arrogant attitude toward those who are not so easily
swayed by fashions in science, are considered to afford scientific proof
of the doctrine. It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new
species or genus, etc., by macromutation. It is equally true that nobody
has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations."—*Richard
Goldschmidt, in American Scientist (1952), p. 94.
Later in this chapter, we will briefly
discuss *Goldschmidt’s "hopeful monster" theory, since it is
based on mutational changes.
18 - TRAITS ARE TOTALLY
INTERCONNECTED—Experienced geneticists are well-aware of the fact that
the traits contained within the genes are closely interlocked with one
another. That which affects one trait will affect many others. They work
together. Because of this, all the traits, in changed form, would have
to all be there together—instantly,—in order for a new species to
Here is how two scientists describe the
"Each mutation occurring alone
would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are
all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a
series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but
to the basic principles of scientific explanation."—*A. Koestler,
The Ghost in the Machine (1975), p. 129.
"Most biological reactions are
chain reactions. To interact in a chain, these precisely built molecules
must fit together most precisely, as the cogwheels of a Swiss watch do.
But if this is so, then how can such a system develop at all? For if any
one of the specific cogwheels in these chains is changed, then the whole
system must simply become inoperative. Saying it can be improved by
random mutation of one link . . [is] like saying you could improve a
Swiss watch by dropping it and thus bending one of its wheels or axles.
To get a better watch all the wheels must be changed simultaneously to
make a good fit again."—*Albert Szent-Gyorgyi, "Drive in
Living Matter to Perfect Itself," Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18
(1977), [Winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director
of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts].
19 - TOO MANY RELATED FACTORS—There
are far too many factors associated with each trait for a single
mutation—or even several to accomplish the needed task. Mathematical
probabilities render mutational species changes impossible of
"Based on probability factors . .
any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of
haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 480 x
1050. Such a number, if written out, would read
"Mathematicians agree that any
requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of
occurrence . . Any species known to us, including the smallest
single-cell bacteria, have enormously larger numbers of nucleotides than
100 or 1000. In fact, single cell bacteria display about 3,000,000
nucleotides, aligned in a very specific sequence. This means, that there
is no mathematical probability whatever for any known species to have
been the product of a random occurrence; ‘random mutations,’ to use
the evolutionist’s favorite expression."—*L.L. Cohen, Darwin
was Wrong (1984), p. 205.
20 - REPRODUCTIVE CHANGES LOW—Here is
an extremely IMPORTANT point: Mutational changes in the reproductive
cells occur far more infrequently than in the cells throughout the rest
of the body. Only mutational changes within the male or female
reproductive cells could affect oncoming generations.
"The mutation rates for somatic
cells are very much higher than the rates for gametic
cells."—*"Biological Mechanisms Underlying the Aging
Process," in Science, August 23, 1963, p. 694.
21 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES INCREASING
COMPLEXITY—The theorists have decreed that evolution, by its very
nature, must move upward into ever-increasing complexity, better
structural organization, and completeness. Indeed, this is a cardinal
dictum of evolutionists. Evolutionists maintain that evolution can only
move upward toward more involved life-forms,—and that it can never
move backward into previously evolved life-forms.
But, in reality, mutations, by their
very nature, tear down, disorganize, crumble, confuse, and destroy.
Here is how one scientist explains the
"One should remember that an
increase in complexity is what evolution is all about. It is not
conceived as causing a change which continues to maintain the same level
of complexity, nor does it mean a change which might bring about a
decrease in complexity. Only an increase in complexity qualifies.
"Radiations from natural sources
enter the body in a hit-or-miss fashion. That is, they are completely
random in the dispersed fashion with which they strike. Chemical
mutagens also behave in an indiscriminate manner in causing chemical
change. It is hard to see how either can cause improvements. With either
radiations or mutagens, it would be something like taking a rifle and
shooting haphazardly into an automobile and expecting thereby to create
a better performing vehicle, and one that shows an advance in the
state-of-the-art for cars.
"The question is, then, can random
sources of energy as represented by radiations or mutagenic chemicals,
upon reacting with the genes, cause body changes which would result in a
new species?"—Lester McCann, Blowing the Whistle on Darwinism
(1986), p. 51.
22 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW
INFORMATION—In order for a new organism to be formed by evolutionary
change, new information banks must be emplaced. It is something like
using a more advanced computer program; a "card" of more
complicated procedural instructions must be put into the central
processing unit of that computer. But the haphazard, random results of
mutations could never provide this new, structured information.
"If evolution is to occur . .
living things must be capable of acquiring new information, or
alteration of their stored information."—*George Gaylord Simpson,
"The Non-prevalence of Humanoids," in Science, 143, (1964), p.
23 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES NEW ORGANS—It
is not enough for mutations to produce changes;—they must produce new
organs! Billions of mutational factors would be required for the
invention of one new organ of a new species, and this mutations cannot
"A fact that has been obvious for
many years is that Mendelian mutations deal only with changes in
existing characters . . No experiment has produced progeny that show
entirely new functioning organs. And yet it is the appearance of new
characters in organisms which mark the boundaries of the major steps in
the evolutionary scale."—*H.G. Cannon, The Evolution of Living
24 - EVOLUTION REQUIRES COMPLICATED
NETWORKING—A relatively new field of scientific study is called
"linkage," "linkage interconnections," or
"networking." This is an attempt to analyze the network of
interrelated factors in the body. I say, "an attempt," for
there are millions of such linkages. Each structure or organ is related
to another—and also to thousands of others. (A detailed study of this
type of research will be found in Creation Research Society Quarterly,
for March 1984, pp. 199-211. Ten diagrams and seven charts are
Our concern here is that each mutation
would damage a multi-link network. This is one of the reasons why
mutations are always injurious to an organism.
The kidneys interconnect with the
circulatory system, for they purify the blood. They also interconnect
with the nervous system, the endocrine system, the digestive system,
etc. But such are merely major systems. Far more is included. We are
simply too fearfully and wonderfully made for random mutations to
accomplish any good thing within our bodies.
25 - VISIBLE AND INVISIBLE
MUTATIONS—"Visible mutations" are those genetic changes that
are easily detectable, such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia.
*Winchester explains: (1) For every visible mutation, there are 20
lethal ones which are invisible! (2) Even more frequent than the lethal
mutations would be the ones that damage but do not kill.
"Lethal mutations outnumber
visibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects,
the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal
ones."—*A.M. Winchester, Genetics, 5th Edition (1977), p. 356.
26 - NEVER HIGHER VITALITY THAN
PARENT—Geneticists, who have spent a lifetime studying mutations, tell
us that each mutation only weakens the organism. Never does the mutated
offspring have more strength than the unmutated (or less mutated)
"There is no single instance where
it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher
vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely
impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on
recombinations."—*N. Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung
(Synthetic Speciation) (1953), p. 1157 [italics his].
27 - MUTATIONS ARE NOT PRODUCING SPECIES
CHANGE—Theory, theory, lots of theory, but it just isn’t happening!
"No matter how numerous they may
be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."—*Pierre Paul
Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.
"It is true that nobody thus far
has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a
combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has
produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a
few mutations]."—*Richard B. Goldschmdt, "Evolution, As
Viewed by One Geneticist, "American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.
A "nascent organ" is one that
is just coming into existence. None have ever been observed.
"Do we, therefore, ever see
mutations going about the business of producing new structures for
selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging,
though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary
theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various
stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don’t see
them. There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither
observation nor controlled experiment has shown natural selection
manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme
system or organ."—*Michael Pitman Adam and Evolution (1984), pp.
28 - GENE UNIQUENESS FORBIDS SPECIES
CHANGE—The very fact that each species is so different than the
others—forbids the possibility that random mutations could change them
into new species. There are million of factors which make each species
different than all the others. The DNA code barrier that would have to
be crossed is simply too immense.
"If life really depends on each
gene being as unique as it appears to be, then it is too unique to come
into being by chance mutations."—*Frank B. Salisbury,
"Natural Selection and the Complexity of the Gene," Nature,
October 25, 1969, p. 342.
You have just completed
10 Mutations Part 1
Go to the next file in
Chapter 10 Mutations Part 2