Chapter 9: Do Mutations Produce New Life = Forms?

When I began to feel the pressure of having no=20 experimentally testable facts to substantiate my position as a = theistic=20 evolutionist, I turned to what I thought was my ace in the hole: = Genetics. Didn't everyone know that the science of genetics had=20 irrevocably shown evolution in progress? Without mutations = (changes in=20 the genes and chromosomes), there is no evolutionary change. The = question my students asked was, "Do mutations produce new life = forms or=20 improvements in present life forms?" Naturally I assumed they = produce=20 new forms and I thought I could prove it from the scientific = literature.=20 I was due for another rude awakening!

Many creationists^[1] and=20 evolutionists study the phenomenon of genetic mutation. The = predominant=20 view of evolutionists was expressed by Dr. = Ernst Mayr=20 of Harvard: "Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to=20 mutation." ^[2] Dr.=20 Mayr instructs us that all variation (different types of plants = and=20 animals) observable in life is due to changes in the genes and=20 chromosomes. These mutations occur in the make-up of = DNA.

DNA, the basic information system of the cell, = contains=20 the blue prints needed to manufacture twenty or more different = proteins.=20 Each of these proteins is manufactured in little = "cell-factories" at the=20 direction of the DNA and is essential for the maintenance of = life. So,=20 which came first? If DNA is essential in the manufacturing = process of=20 proteins, and the manufacturing process produces the proteins = essential=20 to DNA, then you can't have one without the other. This means = they both=20 must have been created fully functional and at exactly the same = point in=20 time. In other words, God must have created the information = system of=20 all cells at a point in time and fully functional. DNA is = needed=20 to make DNA! DNA provides the instructions to the chemical = factories=20 inside the cell for making itself.

Scientists call DNA the "language of the cell." = All=20 scientists agree that language requires intelligence. Could = there be an=20 implication here that DNA, the "language of the cell" required=20 intelligence to create it? Could it be that DNA was created = fully=20 functional in all the different kinds of life by an intelligent=20 Designer, the God of the Bible! Evolution offers no answers to = this=20 weighty problem. Yet the God of Creation proclaims through His = Holy=20 Scriptures, "I created, created, created!"

The genetic information of DNA cannot be = improved upon in=20 any normal, healthy organism. Natural selection or "survival of = the=20 fittest" does not produce new genes, it merely selects the best = suited=20 animal or plant life for a specific niche or environment. This = is=20 adaptation to a specific environment and not mutation. Yet = mutation is=20 the only mechanism scientists have proposed to generate the = "new"=20 genetic information needed for evolutionary change in the=20 molecules-to-man model. This presents an enormous problem for = the=20 evolution model, especially when we learn that mutation in a = gene is a=20 rare event.^[3]

How could life have evolved into all its = millions of forms=20 if the very mechanism that causes it to evolve (mutation) is a = rare=20 event? When mutations do occur, geneticists tell us that = mutations are=20 99.9% harmful.

"The process=20 of mutation is the only source of the raw materials of genetic=20 variability, and hence, of evolution....The mutants which arise = are,=20 with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in = the=20 environments which the species normally encounters." (Theodosius = Dobzhansky) ^[4]

Dobzhansky spent his professional life breeding = and=20 mutating fruit flies. In the end, he had somewhat strange fruit = flies,=20 but fruit flies nonetheless. Some of those flies were not even = able to=20 reproduce because they had become sterile. Dobzhansky writes = that=20 mutations are the only source of evolution, but that they are = almost=20 always harmful (which means the mutation makes the life-form = that gets=20 it less able to survive where it lives). If "survival of = the=20 fittest" is true, then mutations should, cause extinctions, not = new and=20 better life forms. Of course what we observe in nature are=20 extinctions of plants and animals rather than emerging, = new life=20 forms. There are millions of living things from plants to = insects, but=20 we hear almost weekly of more extinctions. How many newly = evolved=20 creatures have you heard about in your lifetime? With all the = millions=20 of living things in the world surely mutations are happening and = something is or has evolved into something else. The = evolutionists are=20 frantically searching for the smallest hint that something will = evolve=20 and prove their theory to be true.

A few years ago the evolutionary community = presented to=20 the public their best example of evolution in progress. It was a = guppy=20 family that had been separated from their old friends for = several years.=20 When the guppies were reunited they would not mate. = Evolutionists=20 consider a life-form to be a new species when it will no longer = mate=20 with its old friends. Maybe the guppy didn't smell good when it = came=20 back from its temporary environment. Or maybe its old friends = didn't=20 recognize it, or maybe the researchers didn't wait long enough = to see if=20 the guppy would be accepted again. The fact is that both = populations of=20 guppies were still unmistakably identifiable to scientists and = laymen as=20 guppies. Where is the evidence for the evolution of one creature = into=20 another when after more than eleven years of breeding guppies = they are=20 still guppies.

Even if these fish refuse to breed with each = other and are=20 therefore categorized as a new species of guppy, does this prove = evolution of one kind into another kind of creature. People have = devised=20 their definitions of and limits to species, but God refers to = "kinds" in=20 the Genesis account. Biblically, there are certain boundaries = that no=20 living form can cross. A specific "kind" of creature will never = evolve=20 into another "kind" of creature. Guppies are fish. Within the = fish-kind=20 there is a lot of room for change, even "evolutionary" change, = but fish=20 will forever be fish, big ones, little ones, fresh water and = salt water,=20 but still fish.

It doesn't seem right for scientists to tell us = in school=20 and college that the chief mechanism in our ever upward and = onward=20 evolutionary process is mutation in the genes when they say in = the=20 scientific literature mutations are harmful or deadly: "Mutations=20 are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect=20 viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect = it=20 adversely." (C.P. Martin) ^[5],^[6],^[7]

So we learn that mutations in a healthy = life-form=20 invariably cause harmful changes or death (lethal) to the = organism. How=20 does evolution from molecules-to-man occur if the very process = that=20 supposedly causes it to happen, in truth, harms or kills the = organism?=20 To put this another way, why did the evolutionary scientists = evacuate=20 the area when the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in = Pennsylvania=20 destroyed itself? Why didn't these scientists move their = families into=20 the area to be irradiated so mutations might develop and they = could=20 evolve into the next higher life form? The scientists knew that = their=20 offspring would inherit unhealthy characteristics from the Three = Mile=20 Island irradiation. They got away from the mutation-causing = radiation as=20 fast as they could!

"...mutants = would usually be=20 detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly = organized=20 reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in = the=20 highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute = life is=20 almost certain to impair it -- just as a random interchange of=20 connections in a television set is not likely to improve the=20 picture." ^[8]=20

Dr. Crow's analogy is accurate. All of us know = that=20 stirring up and haphazardly reattaching wires in the back of a = T.V. set=20 will not improve the picture. In the same way random changes in = the=20 genes do not improve our ability to live and function. As a = matter of=20 fact no scientist has yet observed a random mutation produce a = new=20 hormone, enzyme, or simple organ.^[9]=20 Nevertheless they teach us and our children the lie that we are = here=20 because our primeval ancestors had mutations occur in their = genes that=20 caused them to evolve higher and higher until here we are. = Magic!!=20 Listen to the words of the famous = evolutionist from=20 the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Loren Eiseley:=20

"With the = failure of these=20 many efforts (to prove evolution to be true), science was left = in the=20 somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate = theories of=20 living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having = chided the=20 theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found = itself in=20 the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its = own:=20 namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be = proved=20 to take place today had in truth, taken place in the primeval=20 past." ^[10]=20 (Emphasis added)=20

One of the world's leading experts on plant = evolution and=20 fossil plants, Dr. E. J. H. Corner of = Cambridge=20 University dogmatically states:

"The theory of = evolution is=20 not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only = explanation=20 of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy = of=20 natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the = theory=20 of evolution -- from biology, bio-geography and paleontology, = but I=20 still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of = plants is=20 in favour of special creation." ^[11]=20 (Emphasis added)=20

According to expert Corner, there is no evidence = for the=20 evolution of plants. In fact, when plants are studied closely = they=20 appear to be a special creation! The field of botany (plants) = does not=20 prove evolution, and yet Dr. Corner still believes in an = evolutionary=20 mythological system. He is trusting his compatriots in "biology, = bio-geography and paleontology" to prove evolution to be true. = In=20 Corner's field (plants), special creation appears to be the best = option.

If there is no evidence for the evolution of = people or=20 plants, then how about evidence for the evolution of = fish?

"The=20 geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the = origin of=20 the fishes,...[J.R. Norman (British Museum of Natural=20 History)] ^[12]=20

According to these experts, there is no evidence = for the=20 evolution of plants, and no evidence for the evolution of fish. = What=20 about amphibians?

"...none=20 of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the = earliest=20 land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians=20 appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of = developing the=20 stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive = tetrapods...=20

Since the fossil = material=20 provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from = fish to=20 tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs = and=20 aerial breathing evolved..." (Barbara J. Stahl) ^[13]=20 (Emphasis added).=20

No evidence for the evolution of plants and no = evidence=20 for fish. What's more, the only evidence for amphibians is the=20 "speculations" of the fossil experts. The evidence, then, for = evolution=20 of creatures as they supposedly developed the ability to crawl = out of=20 water and live as land animals is in the imagination of the=20 evolutionist. There are no fossils and no facts to support = belief in the=20 evolution of amphibians. How about birds?

"The=20 [evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. = There=20 is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable = change=20 from reptile to bird was achieved." (W.E. = Swinton) ^[14]=20

The evolution of birds is a "matter of = deduction".=20 "Deduction" in this case is a polite synonym for imagination. = There is=20 not a single, undisputed fossil that shows the evolutionary = transitions=20 of reptiles into birds.

=20 According to the above = evolutionary=20 experts, evolution is grossly lacking in hard evidence! Although = we are=20 told that mutations are good because they generate new life and = produce=20 evolution, we do not see this "good" happening in reality. = Genetic=20 mutations cannot be the driving force behind evolution. Nor do = the=20 evolutionists provide evidence to prove the evolution of any=20 creature.

But what if earth history was counted in = billions of=20 years? The old argument always comes along at this point that=20 anything can happen in a random-chance system if it is = given=20 enough time. The miracle of life can come from dead chemicals if = given=20 enough time. We will discuss the "billions of years" argument in = Chapter=20 10. But before leaving Chapter 9, let us not forget that changes = in the=20 genes (random mutations) do not improve present life forms, nor = is there=20 any solid factual evidence that they generate new plants or = animals. The=20 evacuation of Three Mile Island spoke volumes! (If, indeed, = mutations=20 are helpful then we should gladly and willingly expose ourselves = to them=20 to "improve" our evolutionary opportunities!)

^[1] Dr. Walter = Brown=20 wrote a paper several years ago on the evidences for creation. = In his=20 footnotes was a selection of quotes from the pro-evolutionary = literature=20 dealing with genetics. For this valuable information, please = contact Dr.=20 Walter Brown, The Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 North = 20th Place,=20 Phoenix, AZ 85016.

[^2] Ernst = Mayr, Mathematical Challenges to = the=20 Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Philadelphia: = Wister=20 Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.

[^3] "Although mutation is the ultimate source of all = genetic=20 variation, it is a relatively rare event..." , Francisco Ayala, = "The=20 Mechanics of Evolution," Scientific American, = September=20 1978, p. 63.

[^4] Theodosius = Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and = Anthropology," American Scientist, = Winter,=20 December 1957, p. 385.

[^5] C. P. = Martin, "A=20 Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist, = January=20 1953, p. 162.

[^6] "If we say that it is only by chance that they = (mutations)=20 are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, = they are=20 useless, detrimental, or lethal." W. R. Thompson, Introduction to the Origin = of=20 Species, by Charles Darwin (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1956), = p.=20 10.

[^7] "Lethal mutations outnumber visibles = (Albinism,=20 Dwarfism, Hemophilism) by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have = harmful=20 effects are even more frequent than lethal ones." A. M. = Winchester, Genetics, 5th ed. = (Boston:=20 Houghton Mufflin Co., 1977), p. 356.

[^8] James = Crow, "Genetic=20 Effects of Radiation," Bulletin=20 of Atomic Sciences, 14 (1958), = 19-20.

[^9]=20 "Do = we, therefore, ever see mutations going about = the=20 business of producing new structures for selection to work on? = No=20 nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their = origin in=20 prefunctional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should = be=20 visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to=20 integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: = there is=20 no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither = observation or=20 controlled experiment has shown natural selection manipulating = mutations=20 so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system or organ." = Michael=20 Pitman, Adam and = Evolution=20 (London: Rider Press, 1981), pp. 67,68.

[^10] Dr. Loren = Eiseley,=20 The Immense Journey = (New=20 York: Random House, 1957), p. 199.

[^11] E. J. H. = Corner, 'Evolution' in = Contemporary=20 Botanical Thought, eds. Anna M.=20 Macleod and L. S. Cobley, Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical = Society of=20 Edinburg, 1961, p. 97. As quoted (partially) from The Quote Book, p.=20 11.

[^12] J. R. = Norman,=20 "Classification and Pedigrees: Fossils," in A History of Fishes, = 3rd ed.,=20 ed. Dr. P. H. Greenwood, British Museum = of Natural=20 History, London, 1975, p. 343. As quoted (partially) from The Quote Book, p.=20 11.

[^13]=20 Barbara J.=20 Stahl, Vertebrate = History:=20 Problems in Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), pp. = 148,195. As=20 quoted in The Quote = Book, p.=20 11.

[^14] Wo. E. = Swinton, "The=20 Origin of Birds," Chapter 1 in Biology and Comparative = Physiology=20 of Birds, A. J. Marshall, ed., Vol. I (New York: Academic = Press,=20 1960), p. 1. As quoted in The=20 Quote Book, p. 11.

TOP OF = page

SITE=20 MAP * SEARCH * HOME= =20 * INDEX

FAVORITE LINKS *=20 SPECIAL BOOK OFFERS

E-MAIL- COMMENTS

HARVESTIME BOOKS

PO. BOX 300

ALTAMONT TN. = 37301