The Evolution
of a
Creationist
9 DO MUTATIONS PRODUCE
NEW LIFE FORMS?
When I began to feel the pressure of having no
experimentally testable facts to substantiate my position as a
theistic
evolutionist, I turned to what I thought was my ace in the hole:
Genetics. Didn't everyone know that the science of genetics had
irrevocably shown evolution in progress? Without mutations
(changes in
the genes and chromosomes), there is no evolutionary change. The
question my students asked was, "Do mutations produce new life
forms or
improvements in present life forms?" Naturally I assumed they
produce
new forms and I thought I could prove it from the scientific
literature.
I was due for another rude awakening!
Many creationists and
evolutionists study the phenomenon of genetic mutation. The
predominant
view of evolutionists was expressed by Dr.
Ernst Mayr
of Harvard: "Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to
mutation." Dr.
Mayr instructs us that all variation (different types of plants
and
animals) observable in life is due to changes in the genes and
chromosomes. These mutations occur in the make-up of
DNA.
DNA: LANGUAGE OF THE
CELL
DNA, the basic information system of the cell,
contains
the blue prints needed to manufacture twenty or more different
proteins.
Each of these proteins is manufactured in little
"cell-factories" at the
direction of the DNA and is essential for the maintenance of
life. So,
which came first? If DNA is essential in the manufacturing
process of
proteins, and the manufacturing process produces the proteins
essential
to DNA, then you can't have one without the other. This means
they both
must have been created fully functional and at exactly the same
point in
time. In other words, God must have created the information
system of
all cells at a point in time and fully functional. DNA is
needed
to make DNA! DNA provides the instructions to the chemical
factories
inside the cell for making itself.
Scientists call DNA the "language of the cell."
All
scientists agree that language requires intelligence. Could
there be an
implication here that DNA, the "language of the cell" required
intelligence to create it? Could it be that DNA was created
fully
functional in all the different kinds of life by an intelligent
Designer, the God of the Bible! Evolution offers no answers to
this
weighty problem. Yet the God of Creation proclaims through His
Holy
Scriptures, "I created, created, created!"
The genetic information of DNA cannot be
improved upon in
any normal, healthy organism. Natural selection or "survival of
the
fittest" does not produce new genes, it merely selects the best
suited
animal or plant life for a specific niche or environment. This
is
adaptation to a specific environment and not mutation. Yet
mutation is
the only mechanism scientists have proposed to generate the
"new"
genetic information needed for evolutionary change in the
molecules-to-man model. This presents an enormous problem for
the
evolution model, especially when we learn that mutation in a
gene is a
rare event.
How could life have evolved into all its
millions of forms
if the very mechanism that causes it to evolve (mutation) is a
rare
event? When mutations do occur, geneticists tell us that
mutations are
99.9% harmful.
"The process
of mutation is the only source of the raw materials of genetic
variability, and hence, of evolution....The mutants which arise
are,
with rare exceptions, deleterious to their carriers, at least in
the
environments which the species normally encounters." (Theodosius
Dobzhansky)
Dobzhansky spent his professional life breeding
and
mutating fruit flies. In the end, he had somewhat strange fruit
flies,
but fruit flies nonetheless. Some of those flies were not even
able to
reproduce because they had become sterile. Dobzhansky writes
that
mutations are the only source of evolution, but that they are
almost
always harmful (which means the mutation makes the life-form
that gets
it less able to survive where it lives). If "survival of
the
fittest" is true, then mutations should, cause extinctions, not
new and
better life forms. Of course what we observe in nature are
extinctions of plants and animals rather than emerging,
new life
forms. There are millions of living things from plants to
insects, but
we hear almost weekly of more extinctions. How many newly
evolved
creatures have you heard about in your lifetime? With all the
millions
of living things in the world surely mutations are happening and
something is or has evolved into something else. The
evolutionists are
frantically searching for the smallest hint that something will
evolve
and prove their theory to be true.
A few years ago the evolutionary community
presented to
the public their best example of evolution in progress. It was a
guppy
family that had been separated from their old friends for
several years.
When the guppies were reunited they would not mate.
Evolutionists
consider a life-form to be a new species when it will no longer
mate
with its old friends. Maybe the guppy didn't smell good when it
came
back from its temporary environment. Or maybe its old friends
didn't
recognize it, or maybe the researchers didn't wait long enough
to see if
the guppy would be accepted again. The fact is that both
populations of
guppies were still unmistakably identifiable to scientists and
laymen as
guppies. Where is the evidence for the evolution of one creature
into
another when after more than eleven years of breeding guppies
they are
still guppies.
Even if these fish refuse to breed with each
other and are
therefore categorized as a new species of guppy, does this prove
evolution of one kind into another kind of creature. People have
devised
their definitions of and limits to species, but God refers to
"kinds" in
the Genesis account. Biblically, there are certain boundaries
that no
living form can cross. A specific "kind" of creature will never
evolve
into another "kind" of creature. Guppies are fish. Within the
fish-kind
there is a lot of room for change, even "evolutionary" change,
but fish
will forever be fish, big ones, little ones, fresh water and
salt water,
but still fish.
It doesn't seem right for scientists to tell us
in school
and college that the chief mechanism in our ever upward and
onward
evolutionary process is mutation in the genes when they say in
the
scientific literature mutations are harmful or deadly: "Mutations
are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect
viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect
it
adversely." (C.P. Martin) ,,
So we learn that mutations in a healthy
life-form
invariably cause harmful changes or death (lethal) to the
organism. How
does evolution from molecules-to-man occur if the very process
that
supposedly causes it to happen, in truth, harms or kills the
organism?
To put this another way, why did the evolutionary scientists
evacuate
the area when the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in
Pennsylvania
destroyed itself? Why didn't these scientists move their
families into
the area to be irradiated so mutations might develop and they
could
evolve into the next higher life form? The scientists knew that
their
offspring would inherit unhealthy characteristics from the Three
Mile
Island irradiation. They got away from the mutation-causing
radiation as
fast as they could!
Professor of Genetics at the
University
of Wisconsin, James Crow writes:
"...mutants
would usually be
detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly
organized
reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in
the
highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute
life is
almost certain to impair it -- just as a random interchange of
connections in a television set is not likely to improve the
picture."
Dr. Crow's analogy is accurate. All of us know
that
stirring up and haphazardly reattaching wires in the back of a
T.V. set
will not improve the picture. In the same way random changes in
the
genes do not improve our ability to live and function. As a
matter of
fact no scientist has yet observed a random mutation produce a
new
hormone, enzyme, or simple organ.
Nevertheless they teach us and our children the lie that we are
here
because our primeval ancestors had mutations occur in their
genes that
caused them to evolve higher and higher until here we are.
Magic!!
Listen to the words of the famous
evolutionist from
the University of Pennsylvania, Dr. Loren Eiseley:
"With the
failure of these
many efforts (to prove evolution to be true), science was left
in the
somewhat embarrassing position of having to postulate
theories of
living origins which it could not demonstrate. After having
chided the
theologian for his reliance on myth and miracle, science found
itself in
the unenviable position of having to create a mythology of its
own:
namely, the assumption that what, after long effort could not be
proved
to take place today had in truth, taken place in the primeval
past."
(Emphasis added)
PLANT
EVOLUTION
One of the world's leading experts on plant
evolution and
fossil plants, Dr. E. J. H. Corner of
Cambridge
University dogmatically states:
"The theory of
evolution is
not merely the theory of the origin of species, but the only
explanation
of the fact that organisms can be classified into this hierarchy
of
natural affinity. Much evidence can be adduced in favour of the
theory
of evolution -- from biology, bio-geography and paleontology,
but I
still think that, to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of
plants is
in favour of special creation."
(Emphasis added)
According to expert Corner, there is no evidence
for the
evolution of plants. In fact, when plants are studied closely
they
appear to be a special creation! The field of botany (plants)
does not
prove evolution, and yet Dr. Corner still believes in an
evolutionary
mythological system. He is trusting his compatriots in "biology,
bio-geography and paleontology" to prove evolution to be true.
in
Corner's field (plants), special creation appears to be the best
option.
If there is no evidence for the evolution of
people or
plants, then how about evidence for the evolution of
fish?
EVOLUTION OF
FISH
"The
geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the
origin of
the fishes,...[J.R. Norman (British Museum of Natural
History)]
According to these experts, there is no evidence
for the
evolution of plants, and no evidence for the evolution of fish.
What
about amphibians?
EVOLUTION OF
AMPHIBIANS
"...none
of the known fishes is thought to be directly ancestral to the
earliest
land vertebrates. Most of them lived after the first amphibians
appeared, and those that came before show no evidence of
developing the
stout limbs and ribs that characterized the primitive
tetrapods...
Since the fossil
material
provides no evidence of other aspects of the transformation from
fish to
tetrapod, paleontologists have had to speculate how legs
and
aerial breathing evolved..." (Barbara J. Stahl)
(Emphasis added).
No evidence for the evolution of plants and no
evidence
for fish. What's more, the only evidence for amphibians is the
"speculations" of the fossil experts. The evidence, then, for
evolution
of creatures as they supposedly developed the ability to crawl
out of
water and live as land animals is in the imagination of the
evolutionist. There are no fossils and no facts to support
belief in the
evolution of amphibians. How about birds?
EVOLUTION OF
BIRDS
"The
[evolutionary] origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction.
There
is no fossil evidence of the stages through which the remarkable
change
from reptile to bird was achieved." (W.E.
Swinton)
The evolution of birds is a "matter of
deduction".
"Deduction" in this case is a polite synonym for imagination.
There is
not a single, undisputed fossil that shows the evolutionary
transitions
of reptiles into birds.
According to the above
evolutionary
experts, evolution is grossly lacking in hard evidence! Although
we are
told that mutations are good because they generate new life and
produce
evolution, we do not see this "good" happening in reality.
Genetic
mutations cannot be the driving force behind evolution. Nor do
the
evolutionists provide evidence to prove the evolution of any
creature.
TIME GENERATES
MIRACLES
But what if earth history was counted in
billions of
years? The old argument always comes along at this point that
anything can happen in a random-chance system if it is
given
enough time. The miracle of life can come from dead chemicals if
given
enough time. We will discuss the "billions of years" argument in
Chapter
10. But before leaving Chapter 9, let us not forget that changes
in the
genes (random mutations) do not improve present life forms, nor
is there
any solid factual evidence that they generate new plants or
animals. The
evacuation of Three Mile Island spoke volumes! (If, indeed,
mutations
are helpful then we should gladly and willingly expose ourselves
to them
to "improve" our evolutionary opportunities!)
Dr. Walter
Brown
wrote a paper several years ago on the evidences for creation.
In his
footnotes was a selection of quotes from the pro-evolutionary
literature
dealing with genetics. For this valuable information, please
contact Dr.
Walter Brown, The Center for Scientific Creation, 5612 North
20th Place,
Phoenix, AZ 85016.
[ Ernst
Mayr, Mathematical Challenges to
the
Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution (Philadelphia:
Wister
Institute Press, 1967), p. 50.
[ "Although mutation is the ultimate source of all
genetic
variation, it is a relatively rare event..." , Francisco Ayala,
"The
Mechanics of Evolution," Scientific American,
September
1978, p. 63.
[ Theodosius
Dobzhansky, "On Methods of Evolutionary Biology and
Anthropology," American Scientist,
Winter,
December 1957, p. 385.
[ C. P.
Martin, "A
Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist,
January
1953, p. 162.
[ "If we say that it is only by chance that they
(mutations)
are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general,
they are
useless, detrimental, or lethal." W. R. Thompson, Introduction to the Origin
of
Species, by Charles Darwin (New York: E. P. Dutton, 1956),
p.
10.
[ "Lethal mutations outnumber visibles
(Albinism,
Dwarfism, Hemophilism) by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have
harmful
effects are even more frequent than lethal ones." A. M.
Winchester, Genetics, 5th ed.
(Boston:
Houghton Mufflin Co., 1977), p. 356.
[ James
Crow, "Genetic
Effects of Radiation," Bulletin
of Atomic Sciences, 14 (1958),
19-20.
[
"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
prefunctional 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 or
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
(London: Rider Press, 1981), pp. 67,68.
[ Dr. Loren
Eiseley,
The Immense Journey
(New
York: Random House, 1957), p. 199.
[ E. J. H.
Corner, 'Evolution' in
Contemporary
Botanical Thought, eds. Anna M.
Macleod and L. S. Cobley, Oliver and Boyd, for the Botanical
Society of
Edinburg, 1961, p. 97. As quoted (partially) from The Quote Book, p.
11.
[ J. R.
Norman,
"Classification and Pedigrees: Fossils," in A History of Fishes,
3rd ed.,
ed. Dr. P. H. Greenwood, British Museum
of Natural
History, London, 1975, p. 343. As quoted (partially) from The Quote Book, p.
11.
[
Barbara J.
Stahl, Vertebrate
History:
Problems in Evolution (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974), pp.
148,195. As
quoted in The Quote
Book, p.
11.
[ Wo. E.
Swinton, "The
Origin of Birds," Chapter 1 in Biology and Comparative
Physiology
of Birds, A. J. Marshall, ed., Vol. I (New York: Academic
Press,
1960), p. 1. As quoted in The
Quote Book, p. 11.
TOP NEXT
CHAPTER PREVIOUS
CHAPTER TABLE
OF
CONTENTS