How Does It Happen?
ANOTHER problem that must be faced is this: if evolution is true, how does it happen? What is it that makes living things change so much that single-celled plants and animals transform themselves into higher and higher forms of life?
Evolutionists say that changes inside the nucleus of the cell are responsible. They believe that the primary mechanisms involved are the genes, the segments of chromosomes that are the heredity carriers.
These gene changes are called mutations. They are said to be responsible for producing new characteristics, and the reason why one-celled forms of life could evolve all the way up to man. Professor P. Koller, British geneticist, states: “Mutations provide variability, and for this reason, they are necessary for evolutionary progress.”
Do They Produce Anything NEW?
But do these changes, mutations, really produce new characteristics? No, they do not. As Professor Moore points out: “Any gene mutation results in no more than alteration of already existing or known traits.” So every gene mutation is only a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but nothing brand new.
For instance, gene mutations may change the color, texture or length 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, but it will always be a hand, not a bird’s wing. Furthermore, such changes only vary within a certain range, around a central average. To illustrate: people may grow 7 feet tall (Watusis) or 4 feet tall (Pygmies). A few will exceed 7 feet (the Bible refers to such a man—Goliath, who measured 9 feet 5.7 inches) and a few dwarfs are below 4 feet. But never will mutations make people grow 20 feet tall, or only 6 inches tall. Most will vary around the central average of between 5 and 6 feet.
Also, the variations due to mutations are usually very small, and never result in totally different characteristics. That is why the author of Darwin Retried relates the following about the highly 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.”
A More Serious Problem
But there is another more serious problem to this. It has to do with the nature of these changes from what is normal. The changes, whether of chromosomes or genes, are usually undesirable.
For example, of chromosome changes the book Chromosomes and Genes says: “Many produce both physical and mental disabilities.” When a human is born with forty-seven chromosomes instead of forty-six, he may be a mongoloid or have other mental and physical deficiencies. Forty-eight chromosomes produce mental defectives and physical deformities in humans.
The same thing is observed in gene mutations. Evolutionist Koller admits: “Most gene mutations are recessive and harmful, and may be lethal.” He also says: “Extensive studies have . . . demonstrated the fact that 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.”
So it is commonly acknowledged that mutations make the organisms that have them weaker, less fertile, and shorter lived than their normal counterparts. Stebbins shows that when mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones the result was always the same: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.” They could not thrive, because they were degenerate.
If mutations are so important to evolution, then we should welcome, indeed, encourage them. But note what Asimov says: “Exposure to increased radiation cannot help but increase the mutation rate. This is a bothersome fact, because most mutations are for the worse.” Yet, after admitting that, he concludes: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.” Does that sound sensible to you?
Does it seem logical that all the amazingly complex cells, organs, limbs and processes in living things were built up from a procedure that tears down? Remember, as evolutionists admit, “for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”
If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were incorrect? If an automobile driver 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?
Could Mutations Make An Eye?
Could the human eye, for example, have been built up by such a bungling process? For sight to be possible, all the many eye parts must be complete and in perfect working order. If the slightest thing is wrong, or any part incomplete, the eye fails to perform its function. It is useless.
Evolutionists claim that “nature” accepts only those changes that confer some immediate use or advantage to the organism. According to their theory the eye could never have formed.
Consider too that there are different types of eyes, in humans, animals, insects, birds and fish. Such a variety of eyes means that eye evolution would have had to occur, not once, but many, many times, in different ways. Have you ever heard of different cameras coming into existence in that way, “accidentally”? No, they need a designer and maker. And yet, a camera is very simple compared to an eye.
Thus, it is understandable why evolutionist Salisbury remarked of the eye: “It’s bad enough accounting for the origin of such things once, but the thought of producing them several times according to the modern [evolution] theory makes my head swim.”
In addition, how often do mutations occur? World Book encyclopedia states: “Natural mutations occurred so rarely that the researchers made little progress.” To study mutations they had to be induced by X rays and chemical means. As evolutionist Stebbins says: “Rates of mutation vary widely . . . but are always low. Direct experiments to determine the cause of ‘spontaneous’ mutations are almost impossible due to the low rate of their occurrence.’’ And Koller says: “The probability that such a mistake might occur in a gene is one in one hundred million.”
Thus, a mutation is called a “mistake.” The chance of one occurring is “one in one hundred million.” Of those that do occur, “for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”
Does all of this strike you as a process of improving living things, producing better, newer ones? Or does it sound much more like a process that tears down those that do exist? Is it improvement, or degeneration?
In Chromosomes and Genes we read: “Muller estimates that about six per cent of all persons are born with some tangible loss of fitness due to gene mutations. It is therefore not surprising for some biologists to believe that while our cultural and technical evolution progresses, biologically mankind is degenerating rather than improving.”
In the face of such evidence, what would you conclude? Is the very heart of the evolution theory, mutations, sound? Or, instead, does it seem far more likely that individuals within basic kinds of living things will be harmed by mutations? And do not the facts indicate that any good changes will merely produce variety within a basic kind?
To sum up this matter of mutations, the main pillar of evolution, note what Professor Moore of Michigan State University says:
“As errors, as mistakes, DNA mutational changes essentially result in loss or degeneration or degradation of known physical traits. Loss of viability, loss of reproductive capacity, and even lethal conditions are readily demonstrable as results of most gene mutations. . . .
“Some one might be prone to mention ‘favorable’ gene mutations. A change of color in moths or alteration of food use by bacteria might be cited as results of ‘favorable’ gene mutations. Nevertheless such changes of moths or bacteria are only within a kind of living organism, and not across limits of kinds. . . .
“Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . . that gone mutations are the raw material for any evolutionary process . . . is an utterance of a myth.”
[Picture on page 13]
If an auto driver made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? Yet for every useful mutation there are many thousands that are harmful
[Picture on page 14]
Could human eyes be built up by a bungling process such as mutations?