Creation: Mutations Refutations Part III
A Sunday guest post by my brilliant husband, Gregg.
Every Sunday, my clever husband offers me a “day of rest” by taking over the homemaker duties here. His primary topic, the Biblical Truth of Creation vs. Darwinism, is a subject that has broad reaching scientific, social, and metaphysical implications and is gaining more and more attention in our modern culture. For believers and non-believers alike, the primary purpose is to present scientific, historical, logical, and/or sociological data in an empirical and defensible fashion, as much as possible written in layman’s terms, and in a format suitable for supplementing any homeschool curriculum whether you choose to believe the Biblical account — or secular guesses — about the origins of human life on earth.
The Greatest Argument Against Mutation
“The process of mutation is the only known source of the new materials of genetic variability, and hence of evolution.”
T. Dobzansky, American Scientist, 45 (1957), p. 385.
A mutation is an error (very often caused by damage) to a single unit of existing DNA (a gene). If a mistake occurs in an existing body (somatic) gene, then it only injures the individual; but if a mistake occurs in an existing to a reproductive (gametic) gene, it could be passed on to future generations.
“It remains true to say that we know of no way other than random mutation by which new hereditary variation comes into being, nor any process other than natural selection by which the hereditary constitution of a population changes from one generation to the next.”
C.H. Waddington, The Nature of Life (1962), p. 98.
Mutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information.
“Evolution is, to put it simply, the result of natural selection working on random mutations.”
Michael Ruse, Philosophy of Biology (1973), p. 96.
Tossing a single mutation into a living organism is like tossing a solid oak tree in front of a speeding automobile so that they collide. Accidents are dangerous, and mutations are accidents which are logically always dangerous and frequently even lethal.
Since the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, the philosophy of Neo-Darwinism has assumed that mutation accomplished ALL cross-species changes, and then natural selection afterward refined those changes. This, of course, assumes that mutations and natural selection are both benificial and goal oriented. This means that Darwinists must be capable of keeping two contradictory notions in mind simultaneously — that of randomness and purpose and that of benificicent and deliterious.
“It must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only new material available for natural selection to work upon.”
Earnst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (1970), p. 103.
Darwinists before and since Mayr’s time have consistently echoed this mantra. Today, it is like a little verse of Darwinist scripture, accepted entirely by faith, and whispered in worshipful tones in the halls of Academia. The only problem with the idea is that it does not agree with reality.
Far from being beneficial, mutations constitute a detrimental occurance that ruins and destroys organisms many thousands of times over. Not only is it impossible for mutations to cause the Neo-Darwinists claimed evolutionary process, the reality is that mutations are exponentially more often likely to weaken or even terminate the life process or an organism’s ability to successfully reporoduce. The very sound reason we all fear radiation and (if we have any sense) high concentrations of industrial grade chemicals is because these are a powerful means of producing mutations which will irreparably damage our bodies and can cause birth defects or raise infant mortality rates.
The odds are mathematically difficult on mutation as the “ultimate source of all genetic variation” found in nature. The fact is that it would take multiple simultaneous beneficial mutations to bring about the kind of saltation changes Neo-Darwinism demands. Died in the wool true believers claim that only a long series of individual changes gradually over time would get it done.
Mathematcially, they don’t have time for that number of changes to occur. That much time has not transpired since the beginning of the universe, even allowing the most liberal secular timelines estimates. Mathematcially, the odds of mutations carrying over to subsequent generations in the kind of required numebrs defies any probability.
“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.”
L.L. Cohen, Darwin was Wrong (1984), p. 205.
Scientifically, the number of times mutations not deemed beneficial would not carry through to subsequent generations would vastly outnumber the times it would propigate into major lineages. Only mutational changes within the male or female reproductive (gametic) cells could affect oncoming generations. Mutational changes in the reproductive cells occur far less frequently than in the cells throughout the rest of the body. It has never been observed that a new species has been created by means of mutation.
“It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species orgenus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations];it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by theselection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations].”
Richard B. Goldschmdt, “Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist,”American Scientist, January 1952, p. 94.
Logically, the notion of one change per generation adding up randomly to a mutually supported set of beneficial mutations was refuted long ago.
“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 [winner of two Nobel Prizes for scientific research and Director of Research at the Institute for Muscle Research in Massachusetts], “Drive in Living Matter to Perfect Itself,” Synthesis I, Vol. 1, No. 1, p. 18 (1977).
The Breadcrumbs of Mutation
Mathematics, logic, the science of genetic load are all huge problems for evolution, but the biggest reason mutations cannot lead to evolution is an extremely simple reason. The truth is that mutations imply the Biblical account of creation.
Think about it. Mutations presuppose creation. After all the smoke and mirrors, mutations are merely changes in genes that already exist. The genes were already created.
“Genes of the same kind, like those for straight and curly hair or those for yellow and green seeds, are called alleles. There are over 300 alleles of the hemoglobin gene. That’s a lot of variation, but all those alleles produce hemoglobin, a protein for carrying oxygen in red blood cells (none better than the normal allele). By concept and definition, alleles are just variants of a given gene, producing variation in a given trait. Mutations produce only alleles, which means they can produce only variation within kind (creation), not change from one kind to others (evolution).
“To make evolution happen—or even to make evolution a scientific theory—evolutionists need some kind of “genetic script writer” to increase the quantity and quality of genetic information. Mutations are just “typographic errors” that occur as genetic script is copied. Mutations have no ability to compose genetic sentences, and thus no ability to make evolution happen at all.”
Dr. Gary Parker, Ph. D.; First published in Creation: Facts of Life Chapter 2
Natural selection cannot create genes. Mutations cannot create genes. Natural selection can only eliminate populations of already existing genes and mutations can only create errors in already existing genes.
Most mutations are caused by radiation, environmental factors such as chemicals, or replication errors. What must one have prior to having some kind of a mutation? Obviously, the gene has to already exist before the radiation can hit it, the chemicals can bathe it, or a transcription error while being copied can take place.
Hard core Darwinists like to claim that the Modern Evolutionary synthesis and Neo-Darwinism does not include anything that happened before that first original cell existed. However, Darwin’s theory doesn’t claim that it is an explanatory device about how already existing species can gradually change over time while remaining distinct. It claims to be an explanatory device on the ORIGIN of ALL species and how all species were created out of an original ancestor. A claim that grand, logically, cannot cherry pick on that enormous of a scale. A claim that grand should offer at least some ideas as to how the highly specific and exponentially complex information existed in the first place.
In a very real sense, this is the end of the argument. The gene has to already exist (have been created) before it can mutate. Therefore, all mutation results in is a varied form of an already-existing (already created) gene. In other words, you get variation within kind, just as the Biblical account of creation predicts. Those not afflicted with Darwinism describe this phenomenon as Parents bearing offspring.
The truth is that we were all created in God’s image. We did not come about as a result of mathematically impossible chance and accident. Mutation is the current placeholder in the current secular humanist world view until a better naturalistic, materialistic explanation can be hypothesized. For now, it is the best they have, and it is extremely weak.
I commit to you that I will publish every single comment that meets this blog’s commenting criteria. You may want to review that criteria before adding your opinion here.
God Bless you and yours.