The lie of evolution

Petrel

Do B Cells mutate into an entirely new type of cell, or do they remain B cells?

 

Petrel

You know, I know almost nothing about genes or mutations. But I can easily find many sites that show evolution could not occur through mutation.

Granted, most of these are religious or creationist sites. But most of the quotes are from evolutionists, scientists, and geneticists. They seem to be far more skeptical of mutations than you.

Most of your critics come from your field. But I am sure you will ignore all these criticisms.

http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c10a.htm

 

You can't re-define mutation every time someone comes up with a problem in your thinking. We're talking about point mutations of genes. You said above that there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation and that all mutations are deleterious and typically fatal. This is a complete falsehood, as I have demonstrated using B cells and viruses as examples.

 

This is a lot to overcome.

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 worthwhile evolution?

"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, p. 102.

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. 174.

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 plants.

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 wonderfully improve?

"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 molecule.

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 task.

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 job.

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 offspring!

"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, p. 20.

"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. 80.

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 form!

Here is how two scientists describe the problem:

"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 attainment.

"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

480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

"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 problem:

"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. 772.

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 do.

"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 Things (1958).

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 included.)

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) parent.

"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. 67-68.

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.

 

We've demonstrated how quote mining is unreliable and usually dishonest. The quotations on that page are so truncated and out of context it's impossible to determine what they are really talking about.

The argumentation there is basically a mixture of assumptions, oversimplifications, and equivocation. However, I will go through part of it so you will know that I've at least read it.

Their 28 reasons:

1. False, mutations in B cells are often advantageous.
2. False, depends on the particular mutation. Variability in common gene sequences shows that many proteins are tolerant of quite a bit of mutation and retain function.
3. False, only true of deleterious mutations (which I have shown to not be all mutations).
4. Stupid, mutation is an engine for evolution, but no one would court fate by willingly subjecting themselves to multiple random mutations.
5. Their assumption again. . .
6. Assumption again.
7. Oversimplification and assumption. If the mutation was useless, the phenotype would not be preserved. The randomness of mutation does not prevent natural selection from propagating mutations that produce a more successful phenotype.
8. The same assumption again.
9. Oversimplification again.
10. Oversimplification again (ignores varying rate of mutation for different species and varying population gene pools).
11. Assumption again.
12. They obviously don't know much about molecular evolution.
13. I like Denton, but I've come to the conclusion he's wrong.
14. Leaping to a conclusion--oversimplification of irreducible complexity. According to evolutionary theory every creature is complete at any given moment. This is not an issue.
15. Assuming all mutations are bad.
16. Not true.
17. Oversimplification. Evolution is incremental and is determined by the sum of the changes.
18. Oversimplification of irreducible complexity again. See 14.
19. Gibberish. What's his point?
20. Only applies to organisms undergoing sexual reproduction with the formation of gametes. Assumption that all such organisms are the same. Assumption that rate of gamete mutation is insufficient.
21. Completely false. Evolution is targetless, it is quite possible for an organism to "regress," and some have done so.
22. We have gone over methods for addition of information before, including gene duplication and chromosome duplication.
23. Assumption.
24. Assumption and repetitive to boot. Haven't they beaten this dead horse enough yet?
25. Out of context and without an apparent point. . .
26. Baloney. Look at B cells and viruses.
27. Almost all young earth creationists agree that speciation has occurred. Denying this requires a lot of credulity.
28. Assumption.

Yes, basically I will ignore this page. It would be more helpful if they attempted to address the actual data, starting with the undeniable evidence that mutation can be quite beneficial. Until then, it's just a bunch of disorganized and repetitive assumptions and oversimplifications.

 

You appear to be a very well practiced YE debater.

You successfully throw out many different topics.

You successfully avoid being drawn into debate on any given topic.

You successfully ignore all of the problems presented with you web links and come back to present the same things again and again without ever being able to defend your posts against the mountains of criticism that are raised.

A very successful prediction I made.

I have taken your quote mines in the past and destroyed them by putting them into context. When this is done, the quotes are shown to mean nothing like what the author intended.

I have asked that before you level any more of these dishonest quotes our way that you look up the quotes for yourself. YOu should check that that the person really is a scientists who has done work in a relevant field, that he really did say what is attributed, that he really does accept common descent and that the meaning really means the same thing when presented in the context of the original statement.

You held back for a few days. But the temptation of all those juicy quotes seems to be too much for you.

Did you look up a single quote on that page in the original resource? No? Then how do you know they are accurate? DO you really think that GOuld and Impson and the other big names would really say that evolution can't happen? Do you then think that these quotes accurately reflect the opinion of their author? No? Then they are dishonest. We are warned about bearing false witness.

Please, take any quote on that page and provide us a link where we can read it in context and show that it means the same.

I'll do one for you. You have Darwin quote on that page.

Your quote is in italics.

Do you see how it changes when the rest of the paragraph is added? He is discussing a potential test of his theory. (Strangely enough, I doubt that you will often see a YEer offer a way to test their theories.)

And as far as the eye goes, such intermediates have been observed and been shown to be useful.

Please, before you embarrass yourself and YE, look up the quotes beforing posting them or linking to them. The quotes rarely seem to be accurate and only call into question the integrity of your sources. If you cannot show us the full text of the material from which the quote is drawn then the quote is unlikely to be given any weight.

 

"Mutations good? No Way.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/10mut02.htm "

More seemingly random weblinks instead of discussing topics already under discussion. Any chance of having a discussion on any particular topic?

Let's just take one example quote from you web page.

"Not helpful. Evolution requires improvement, but mutations never help anyone. They only weaken or injure."

This is decidedly not true.

"Higher offspring survival among Tibetan women with high oxygen saturation genotypes residing at 4,000 m," Beall CM, Song K, Elston RC, Goldstein MC, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Sep 28;101(39):14300-4. Epub 2004 Sep 07

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?holding=npg&cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=15353580&dopt=Abstract

This is a newly discovered mutation where people living in a remote, high altitude village have a mutation which allows for a higher capacity to carry oxygen in the blood.

Franceschini G, et al. (1980) "A-IMilano apoprotein. Decreased high density lipoprotein cholesterol levels with significant lipoprotein modifications and without clinical atherosclerosis in an Italian family." J Clin Invest. 66, 892-900

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7430351&dopt=Abstract

A mutation in an Italian community provides protection against clogged arteries, heart attack, and stroke.

"Adaptive evolution after gene duplication," Hughes AL, Trends Genetics, 2002 Sep.18(9):433-4.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12175796&dopt=Abstract

In this case a gene, RNASE1, was duplicated such that we had a new gene, RNASE1B. These genes occur in the colobine monkey, douc langur, and make pancreatic ribonuclease. Through a change in diet, the conditions within the digestive tract of the monkey were altered. Through delective pressure, the B copy of the gene mutated until it was adapted to digest single stranded bacterial RNA.

"Origin of antifreeze protein genes: A cool tale in molecular evolution," John M. Logsdon Jr. and W. Ford Doolittle, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, USA,Vol. 94, pp. 3485-3487, April 1997.

Some fish developed mutations which allowed them to produce their own antifreeze to help survive cold Antarctic waters.

 

"You know, I know almost nothing about genes or mutations. But I can easily find many sites that show evolution could not occur through mutation."

On what basis do you judge those claims if you do not know much about them?

It is important to remember that all of these websites that you can find that you think support you are in direct contradiction to the work of almost all of the experts in the relevent fields. Just what makes you so sure that these amateurs are actually able to point out flaws and weaknesses that the experts themselves missed? How do you know that the claims of flaws are true and factual?

Do you really think that the profesionals are either that incompetent in their chosen fields or that they are as a whole that dishonest?

 

By definition a mutation is any change in nucleotide sequence from the “wild-type” sequence.

ALL mutations with the exception of back-mutations result in a loss of specificity at some point.

You cannot have a series of reductions in specificity and get from a proto-bacteria to a fern or bear or dragonfly.

 

Well, that's like saying you can't alter letters in a sentence and get another word that makes a good meaning. Most of the time it will not but we all know that it can, on rare occasions, come up to make a real meaning. We all know that there are alternative good genes out there. It is simply a matter of perverse faith based stubberness to say that no mutation is ever ever allowed to even accidently happen to light on that alternate good pattern.

 

Brother Petrel: I see your point. We should only consider naturally occurring mutations for our hypothetical experiment. If we have a fairly large population of identical organisms there should be a predictable rate of natural mutations occuring. I would think we would have to stress the population somehow to select for a desired characteristic. Then we compare with an unstressed control group. We may need to run the experiment for several generations in order to multiply the effects to a statistically significant value.

Maybe someone has already done something like that. What I want to know is if someone has been able to demonstrate experimentally if "one beneficial mutation per generation in the presence of ten thousand harmful mutations per generation" can actually be confirmed to occur. That would be interesting in light of the computer simulation that Brother Paul mentioned.

thanks,
A.F.

 

"ALL mutations with the exception of back-mutations result in a loss of specificity at some point."

This claim, while often repeated, is simply false.

I think that the intent is to say that genes are sequenced in such a way that they fulfill a certain role or roles and that a change in the sequence will move the gene away from the sequence that fulfills those roles.

While I think that it is debatable whether that statement is true even for simple changes such as point mutations and deletions, I think that it ignores the real mechanisms by which the data shows us that biology uses to build up its genetic arsenal.

Perhaps the most important method of doing so is to combine a duplication event with other types of mutation. A useful gene is duplicated. Then one of the copies of that gene is free to mutate and perhaps become something new. One compy maintains the old function so no "specificity" is lost while the other copy fulfils a new role which I suspose could be considered an increase in "specificity."

Now there are many things that can go wrong with this process. The genomes of organisms are littered with copies of genes that never were able to mutate into something useful and just sit there as pseudogenes. Sometimes the extra copy helps the organism make more of whatever the gene was making and therefore becomes useful right away without ever being given a chance to diverge.

But sometimes they do evolve into a new and useful gene. One prime example was given above. A gene in a particular monkey that is used to digest ribonuclease was copied. The copy mutated until it was able to specifically digest bacterial RNA, giving the monkey one more resource which it was able to digest.

When you look through the genome, you see that this process has been repeated since the dawn of life. Duplication events happen over and over and over providing genetic material on which mutation and selection can act. Whole families of genes with far reaching effects are created. In fact, if you look at all of life, "[a]bout 200 of these domain families are common to all kingdoms of life and account for nearly 50% of domain structure annotations in the genomes." [Orengo & Thornton (2005), 'Protein Families and Their Evolution - A Structural Perspective', Annu Rev Biochem. 2005 Jul 7;74:867-900.]

Try that again. I think the layman's way of stating that would be that half of all the genes in all the life on earth can be attached to one of only 200 gene families. Two-thirds are included in 1400 known families.

There are records of at least a couple of duplications of the entire genome just during the evolution of the vertebrates. That is a lot of material on which to act.

And there are ways to track the duplications. The genes are divided into families based on the homology of the sequences. But genes are not continuous units. THey are broken up into bits and pieces, often with junk in between. Often, these gene families will show the same bits of junk scattered about between the different genes further indicating their source from a single gene.

Here is a paper that tell how a gene family arose and what new functions that family is able to perform.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-5-42.pdf

Another example can be provided by the very trichromatic vision that most of us enjoy. We have three different opsin genes that give rise to cones in our eyes sensitive to three different wavelengths of light. They are commonly referred to as blue, red and green. The blue opsin is the oldest and was long ago duplicated to give an additional opsin. With two opsin genes, they were free to mutate and diverge until they were sensitive to different frequencies of light, providing dichromatic vision. However, at some point one of the copies had a transposable element of DNA called an Alu sequence inserted to either end. Alu sequences duplicate prolifically and litter much of the primate genome. I want to return to them in a moment. But at some point, the Alu sequences at each end of the opsin gene attempted to duplicate and managed to instead duplicate the entire gene. Now theese two copies were able to diverge and give us our trichromatic vision. A record of this relatively recent duplication is shown by the similarity of the sequences and by the prescence of the flanking Alu sequences on both genes.

Now about these Alu sequences. As I said, they copy themselves around a lot in the primate genome. There are many other such transposable elements, too. Now all of these duplications provide new sequences on which mutation and selection can work. I want to speak of one type of case.

For the Alu sequence, there is a fairly simple mutation which can make it useful. I think it is turning one of its codons into a stop codon. Now, remember from above that genes are broken into pieces generally. The useful bits are called exons and the pieces that must be spliced out are introns.

As it turns out, the exon bits can be used in different combinations to make different genes. When an Alu sequence mutates and introduces a new stop codon, then it can sometimes be identified as a new exon. It is possible for it to then be incorporated into a new gewne that may be useful or that may be useful after some further mutation. But the other exons are not affected and can continue to generate their same old proteins.

Here is a case where a particular Alu sequence mutated and formed a new and useful gene.

Singer SS, Mannel DN, Hehlgans T, Brosius J, Schmitz J., From "junk" to gene: curriculum vitae of a primate receptor isoform gene, J Mol Biol. 2004 Aug 20;341(4):883-6.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15328599&query_hl=1

I think it should be obvious by now that the idea that mutation can only delete from the genome and reduce "specificity" is a very narrow view that ignores what actually happens during evolution. There are many ways to generate new and useful genetic information without harming the organism or causing it to lose some other function as a cost.

Our genes provide a wonderful record of how they were built up over time. YE is unable to offer an alternative theory that accounts for all of these (and more) details of the genome outside of common descent.

 

ALL and ONLY are not good words is most discussions--including real science--the scripture being an exception. These words imply that all possibilities have been identified and explored. Since that premise is probably false the conclusions become speculation at best--probably false.

All of this mutation mambo-jambo stills begs a question: where did all the information come from to even make a mutation? Does this mean there really could be: teenaged mutant ninja turtles? Some of this pseudo science must be coming right out of Hollywood--where anything can happen--kind of like Disneyworld.

How does SIN fit into this equation? Did Homo Sapiens mutate the sin nature or did he inherit it from a monkey? A bird? A fish? A one-celled proto whatever?

Something does not add up here.

Selah,

Bro. James

 

Brother James: Strictly speaking, when a mutation comes along it doesn't need "information". it is a hit, a mistake in the processing of the genes that makes it come out slightly different from the way it went in.

That doesn't take information.

Now lets just say, for conjecture's sake, that maybe 1 out of a thousand such changes might, by accident, actually help out the reproduction of an organism and the others might hurt the reproduction of the organism.

How do we know which are which? We certainly aren't, ourselves, smart enough to examine the gene differences and tell them apart, with all our brains and all our technology, by inspection of the sequences only.

The answer is - let them show us by actually reproducing. As the genes get passed on from generation to generation - and as large portions of the progeny get "deleted" by the environment, with only some of them making it to continue the next generation - well, over time, those genes that actually help wind up becoming more and more frequent in the population. Simply by being helpful to reproduction. Those that hinder get weeded out by the same process.

It is this process of differential reproduction amoung altered genes that causes the arrival of new, better genes at last. The arrival of new information, if you please; information as to how to make a better fitted reproducing organism.

 

Well, with this question, you've left science and the theory of evolution and strayed off into realms of theology and philosophy. I think you already have some information from those fields on sin and redemption, don't you?

 

O.K. Let's call it: misinformation. Are we not talking about defective genetic codes?

The question IS: where did information for these codes, defective or not, ORIGINATE? Also show the statistical probability of the answer.

Is the concept of intelligent design considered a mutation?

Thank-you,

Bro. James

 

Paul, your faith is greater than reality.

 

All your verbiage aside which follows your denial, it is true. It is known. In fact that statement is an exact quote from a biochemist in a private email. It is not a layman's analysis, it is a professional analysis.

 

Don't have to refer to Genesis at all. Here is an example, from a recent email, of the lies professors KNOWINGLY spout to get students to believe in the myth of evolution:

-------

... my professor was teaching in class about the embroyos, ontogony recapitulate phylogeny. After class, I went up to him and pointed out that I read an article a few days back that showed the actual photos and they were different from the textbook drawings. (Of course I didn't reveal that I was a creationist as this professor is very outspoken about his disdain for creationists) He became a little bit uncomfortable and admitted that the actual embryos are not the same as the textbook drawings.. but are still very similar. When I asked for examples of the similarities, he pointed out that sometimes human have 'gill slits' and a 'tail'. He was clearly unhappy so I did not push the subject any further. It was obvious however, that he knew he was lying (obvious from his expression) and that he knew that the actual embryos were not similar at all. I left the class that day feeling perturbed by the fact that he would still teach something he knew was not true. It wouldn't b so bad if he was ignorant.... but deception? That was too much.

... in a written debate... [he] used deceptive methods too. i.e. claimed that the evolution of feathers from scales was only due Retinol to being exposed in the embryo at different stages of its growth. He then showed a picture of a snake with feathers. In the written debate, he did not mention that the reason the snake produced feathers was that that area of skin was grafted from a chicken - Chicken DNA!!! One might argue that it is not short of deception too.

In class, this scale to feather evidence was also presented with photos. Similarly, he left everyone with the impression that it was just Retinol that was different. Never did he mention in the class that it was chicken skin on the snake.