Replies

Mutations do not Support Darwinism

Mutations are frequently cited by Darwinists, along with "selection" as the two essential ingredients for evolution. Yet, a review of empirical research shows that no clear evidence exists to support the belief that mutations in general can be beneficial. In actual fact, mutations are detrimental and should be considered evidence for "de-evolution."

For decades "experiments have been conducted on the effects of mutations, many on Drosophlla meianogaster, a vinegar fly from Kaduna, Africa," according to a report by Dr. Jerry Bergman, titled "Does the Research on Mutations Support Darwinism?" He says this "fruit fly" is an "ideal animal to use to evaluate the long-term effects of mutations." Thomas Hunt Morgan first studied it in 1909 at Columbia University and was awarded the Nobel Prize in 1933. He bred 900 consecutive generations of fruit flies. Bergman says the "mutant stocks" of fruit flies that he produced "are ail merely fruit fly variations, most or all of which would be undesirable or lethal in the wild."

A scientist who did breeding work on forest trees, Maciej Giertych, said "Mutations are either neutral or detrimental . . . We have no proofs for evolution from mutation research."

Bergman also quotes Pathologist David Demick, who works daily with the results of mutations, as saying that virtually thousands of human diseases are associated with mutations. Bergman cites one medical reference book that lists some 4,500 different genetically caused diseases. Demick concludes, "Not one mutation that increased the efficiency of a genetically coded protein has been found."

Bergman says. "Since it is well recognized that the vast majority, if not virtually all mutations, are harmful why do evolutionists still utilize this means as the major, if not the only, source of variation from which natural selection can select? The main reason is no other feasible mechanism has been postulated."

Bergman, in another article on the subject titled "A Review of the Causes and Types of Mutations, Does Evidence Indicate Any Can be Beneficial"" stresses that macroevolution is the Darwinian form of evolution and macroevolution involves natural selection of beneficial mutations.

He says, "Many mutations are a result of chromosomal damage called chromosomal mutations or aberrations, such as chromosomal-caused gene or DNA deletions . . . Virtually all, if not all, of the genetic damage that results from the loss of information is harmful.

Loss mutations, those that result in a non-functional protein, can be beneficial if the loss somehow benefits the animal or the animal's owner. An example would be the mutation that produced a short-legged sheep. The owner bred the sheep because the characteristic reduced the need for high fences. Such mutations do produce loss of information, but what is required for evolution, according to Bergman, are mutations that gain information.

In most cases, mutations do cause damage. Radiation (ultraviolet light, X-rays, neutron radiation, gamma rays, etc.) is mutagenic, meaning it is a factor that can cause mutation.

Bergman says, "Although ultraviolet radiation is hypothesized to have caused most, or at least many, of the mutations that historically drove evolution, it is unlikely that this source can produce beneficial mutations." UV usually only affects skin and eye tissues in multicellular organisms, and in single-celled organisms it causes so much damage virtually no cells can survive.

Because X-rays and gamma rays are more energetic than UV rays, they often produce free radicals, and no known case exists in which they have produced beneficial mutations.

In his summary Bergman states, "The possibility of a mutation that can cause small changes that may be beneficial cannot be categorically ruled out, but the likelihood of adding information to the genome by mutations is virtually nil." He also says, "it is universally acknowledged that over 99.99 % of all mutations are not beneficial but have either no effect or harmful, often lethal, effects."