“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.”15 ~Geneticist Dobzhansky
25. Insects have shown what remarkable stability?
25 For example, insects appeared in the fossil record suddenly and plentifully, without any evolutionary ancestors. Nor have they changed much even down to this day. Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said: “The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.”27 And a report in The Globe and Mail of Toronto commented: “In 40 million years of struggling up the evolutionary ladder, they have made almost no discernible progress.”28 [excerpted Letting the Fossil Record Speak, Chapter 5, p.65 Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (my highlights)]
2 “Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.1 Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.2 And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”3
3. What type of mutations would be required for evolution?
3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.”4 And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations—sudden changes in heredity—breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”5
4. What difficulty arises with the claim that mutations may be involved in rapid evolutionary changes?
4 It also has been said that mutations may be a key to the rapid change called for by the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman stated: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.”6 But aside from such speculations, it is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.
5. How do mutations originate?
5 How do mutations originate? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.”7
Are They Helpful or Harmful?
6, 7. What proportion of mutations are harmful rather than beneficial?
6 If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.”8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”9
7 Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica.10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.11
8. How do actual results verify an encyclopedia’s observation?
8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”13 They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.
9, 10. Why is it an unwarranted assumption that mutations account for evolution?
9 In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.”14 But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?
11-13. Do mutations ever produce anything new?
11 Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new.
12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.”16 But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.
13 Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.
What about…Drosophila melanogaster, common fruit fly??
Since the early 1900’s, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal.
15 After all those decades, what did the experiments show? Dobzhansky revealed one result: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”17 Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.
16. How does the hereditary code help to preserve organisms?
16 The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.”18
17. Why was Goldschmidt disappointed in mutation experiments?
17 Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “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.”19
OH! post needs some pepper?? 😉
18, 19. What claim is made for the peppered moth, and why?
18 Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.
19 Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.
20. How did an English medical journal explain that the peppered moth was not evolving?
20 But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”22
22. Does the fact that some insects prove immune to poisons mean that they are evolving?
22 The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.
23. What Genesis standard has been confirmed also by mutations?
23 The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”
24. How have breeding experiments shown that living things reproduce only “according to their kinds”?
24 Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”24 [excerpted Mutations—A Basis for Evolution? Chapter 8, pp. 99-113, Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?]
Hmmm….:) Flies, moths, tick…ed off?!;) YEAH, at evolution..ary LIES!…“old” news and (my) old reads…but relevant to now.
Unmuting mutations…and what do they say?!
(flies, moths, ticks…still…flies, moths, ticks = Truth)
“the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.””
References/footnotes: Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?
Chapter 5 footnotes:
27. The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49.
28. The Globe and Mail, Toronto, “That’s Life,” October 5, 1982, p. 6.
Chapter 8 footnotes:
1. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 13, p. 809.
2. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 65.
3. Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.
4. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 250.
5. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 27.
6. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 92.
7. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.
8. Cosmos, p. 31.
9. Chromosomes and Genes, p. 127.
10. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Vol. 22, p. 989.
11. The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13.
12. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.
13. Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25.
14. The Wellsprings of Life, by Isaac Asimov, 1960, p. 139.
15. Heredity and the Nature of Man, by Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1964, p. 126.
16. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 6, p. 332.
17. Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.
18. Scientific American, “Inducible Repair of DNA,” by Paul Howard-Flanders, November 1981, p. 72.
19. Darwin Retried, by Norman Macbeth, 1971, p. 33.
20. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 1970, Vol. 20, p. 2706.
21. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.
22. On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.
23. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 5.
24. On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8, 9.
7/24/18 @ 4:43 p.m.