Charles Darwin Publishes ‘Origin of the Species’ Theorizing that Species Originated by Evolutionary Means

The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be “an evolutionary mechanism”-evolution is supposed to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.

The American pathologist David A. Demick notes the following in a scientific article about mutations:

Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan’s syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations… With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.23

The only instance evolutionary biologists give of “useful mutation” is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the hemoglobin molecule’s ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangelyevaluated by some evolutionary biologists as a “useful mutation.”

They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those with the illness is a “gift” of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis is a “useful genetic feature.” This logic is clearly totally unfounded.

It is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to “making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text.” And as with mutations, letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24

So for that reason, as Grassé puts it, “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”25

The most important proof that mutations lead only to damage, is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a fully developed living thing carry more than one piece of information. For instance, one gene may control both the height and the eye color of that organism. Microbiologist Michael Denton explains this characteristic of genes in higher organisms such as human beings, in this way:

1. The wings do not develop.
2. The hind limbs reach full length, but the digits do not fully develop.
3. There is no soft fur covering
4. Although there is a respiratory passage, lungs and air sacs are absent.
5. The urinary tract does not grow, and does not induce the development of the kidney.

The effects of genes on development are often surprisingly diverse. In the house mouse, nearly every coat-colour gene has some effect on body size. Out of seventeen x-ray induced eye colour mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, fourteen affected the shape of the sex organs of the female, a characteristic that one would have thought was quite unrelated to eye colour. Almost every gene that has been studied in higher organisms has been found to effect more than one organ system, a multiple effect which is known as pleiotropy. As Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: “It is doubtful whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higher organisms.”26

On the left we can see the normal development of a domesticated fowl, and on the right the harmful effects of a mutation in the pleiotropic gene. Careful examination shows that a mutation in just one gene damages many different organs. Even if we hypothesize that mutation could have a beneficial effect, this “pleiotropic effect” would remove the advantage by damaging many more organs.

Because of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body, but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns out to be beneficial, as a result of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits.

To summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible:

1. The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure, but will rather impair it. Indeed, no “useful mutation” has ever been observed.
2. Mutations add no new information to an organism’s DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
3. In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent generations.

The Escherichia coli bacterium is no different from specimens a billion years old. Countless mutations over this long period have not led to any structural changes.

All the explanations provided above indicate that natural selection and mutation have no evolutionary effect at all. So far, no observable example of “evolution” has been obtained by this method. Sometimes, evolutionary biologists claim that “they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over an extended period of time.” However, this argument, which is just a way of making themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still observe no “evolution.” Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:

Bacteria …are the organisms which, because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria …exhibit a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect.27

Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process of evolution, but rather just the contrary.

When Darwin’s The Origin of Species was published in 1859, it was believed that he had put forward a theory that could account for the extraordinary variety of living things. He had observed that there were different variations within the same species. For instance, while wandering through England’s animal fairs, he noticed that there were many different breeds of cow, and that stockbreeders selectively mated them and produced new breeds. Taking that as his starting point, he continued with the logic that “living things can naturally diversify within themselves,” which means that over a long period of time all living things could have descended from a common ancestor.

However, this assumption of Darwin’s about “the origin of species” was not actually able to explain their origin at all. Thanks to developments in genetic science, it is now understood that increases in variety within one species can never lead to the emergence of another new species. What Darwin believed to be “evolution,” was actually “variation.”

Continue Reading at Darwinism Refuted to discover the True Origin of Species

NOTES:

1. H. S. Lipson, “A Physicist’s View of Darwin’s Theory”, Evolution Trends in Plants, vol.2, No. 1, 1988, s. 6
2. Sidney Fox, Klaus Dose. Molecular Evolution and The Origin of Life. New York: Marcel Dekker, 1977. s. 2
3. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, London: Abacus, 1984, s. 36- 41
4. B.E. Bishop, “Mendel’s Opposition to Evolution and to Darwin,” Journal of Heredity 87 (1996): s. 205-213; ayrýca bkz. L.A. Callender, “Gregor Mendel: An Opponent of Descent with Modification,” History of Science 26 (1988): s. 41-75
5. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. London: Burnett Books, 1985
6. Ibid.
7. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, The Modern Library, New York, p. 127.
8. V. C. Wynne-Edwards, “Self Regulating Systems in Populations of Animals, Science, vol. 147, 26 March 1965, pp. 1543-1548; V. C. Wynne-Edwards, Evolution Through Group Selection, London, 1986
9. A. D. Bradshaw, “Evolutionary significance of phenotypic plasticity in plants,” Advances in Genetics, vol. 13, pp. 115-155; cited in Lee Spetner, Not By Chance!: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judaica Press, Inc., New York, 1997, pp. 16-17.
10. Andy Coghlan “Suicide Squad”, New Scientist, 10 July 1999
11. Colin Patterson, “Cladistics”, Interview by Brian Leek, interviewer Peter Franz, March 4, 1982, BBC (emphasis added)
12. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin On Trial, Intervarsity Press, Illinois, 1993, p. 27.
13. For more detailed information about Industrial Melanism, please see Phillip Johnson, Darwin on Trial, InterVarsity Press, 2nd. Ed., Washington D.C., p. 26.
14. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 149-150.
15. Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution is Wrong, Regnery Publishing, Washington, 2000, pp. 141-151.
16. Jerry Coyne, “Not Black and White”, a review of Michael Majerus’s Melanism: Evolution in Action, Nature, 396, 1988, pp. 35-36
17. Stephen Jay Gould, “The Return of Hopeful Monster”, Natural History, vol. 86, June-July 1977, p. 28.
18. Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species: A Facsimile of the First Edition, Harvard University Press, 1964, p. 189.
19. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988. (emphasis added)
20. Warren Weaver et al., “Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation”, Science, vol. 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159.
21. Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Abacus, Sphere Books, London, 1984, p. 48.
22. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, River Publishing, London, 1984, p. 70.
23. David A. Demick, “The Blind Gunman”, Impact, no. 308, February 1999.
24. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 97, 98.
25. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88.
26. Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, Burnett Books Ltd., London, 1985, p. 149.
27. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 87.

Continued on next page…