MUTATIONS
Random chance mutations are generally considered by Darwinian
evolutionists to provide the opportunity for evolutionary steps. Pierre-Paul Grasse disagrees vigorously, and says that mutations have nothing to
do with evolution. His summary statement is, "Some contemporary biologists,
as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution. They are implicitly
supporting the following syllogism: mutations are the only evolutionary
variations, all living beings undergo mutations, therefore all living beings
evolve. This logical scheme is, however, unacceptable: first, because its
major premise is neither obvious nor general; second, because its conclusion
does not agree with the facts. No matter how numerous they may be, mutations
do not produce any kind of evolution (p.88)." He goes on to point out
that bacteria -- the subject of study of many geneticists and molecular
biologists -- are organisms which produce the most mutants. Yet bacteria
are considered to have "stabilized a billion years ago!" He regards
the "unceasing mutations" to be "merely hereditary fluctuations
around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but
no final evolutionary effect (p. 87)." He asks, "How does the
Darwinian mutational interpretation of evolution account for the fact that
the species that have been the most stable -- some of them for the last
hundreds of millions of years -- have mutated as much as the others do?
Once one has noticed microvariations (on the one hand) and specific stability
(on the other), it seems very difficult to conclude that the former (microvariation)
comes into play in the evolutionary process (p.88)."
Grasse compares a mutation to "a typing error made in copying a text
(p. 96)." He says "Mutations have a very limited 'constructive
capacity'; this is why the formation of hair by mutation of reptilian scales
seems to be a phenomenon of infinitesimal probability; the formation of
mammae by mutation of reptilian integumentary glands is hardly more likely
...(p. 97)." He goes on to say, "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 (pp. 97,
98)."
Grasse in several different places in his book provides devastating evidence
to show that "chance" cannot account for evolution. He correctly
evaluates the attitude of Darwinists toward "chance" when he says:
"Directed by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence,
which, under the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped
(p. 107)."
- Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
Evolution of Living Organisms
Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
Pierre-Paul Grasse is the past President of the French Academie des Sciences
and editor of the 35 volume "Traite de Zoologie" published by
Masson, Paris.
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals
and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian
theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require
thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would
become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail
to occur .... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not
indulge in it."
- Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
Evolution of Living Organism
Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103
"To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem
with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously
complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject
the fundamentals of mathematical probability."
- Cohen, I.L. (1984)
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities
New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81
"Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these
alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it
is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will
deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes
addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: ...
I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit
in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question:
How did this ever happen? ..."
- S. Lovtrup, S. (1987)
Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth
London: Croom Helm, p. 422
"The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation
... is well substantiated, but they are such evident freaks that these monsters
can be designated only as 'hopeless.' They are so utterly unbalanced that
they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through
stabilizing selection .... the more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype,
the more likely it is to reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic
mutation would produce a viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive
zone, is equivalent to believing in miracles .... The finding of a suitable
mate for the 'hopeless monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation
from the normal members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable
difficulties."
- Mayr, Ernst (1970)
Populations, Species, and Evolution
Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press, p. 235
"... it is a considerable strain on one's credulity
to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the
eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations.
This is even more true of some ecological chain relationships (the famous
Yucca moth case, and so forth). However, the objectors ot random mutations
have so far been unable to advance any alternative explanation that was
supported by substantial evidence."
- Mayr, Ernst (1942)
Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296
Comment: Where is the substantial evidence that random mutations generated
these finely balanced systems in the first place? If one restricts the origin
of all genetic information to purely random, unguided, and unplanned events
on the basis of philosophical naturalism, one does not need data to conclude
that such random changes must account for the "'arrival of the fittest."
Is this science or philosophy?
"It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutation that extensive
tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism
in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced
into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation.
...
It is nevertheless to be inferred that all the superbly interadapted genes
of any present-day organism arose through just this process of accidental natural
mutation."
- Muller, H. J.
"How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution,"
Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 11, No. 9, November 1955,
p. 331
(H.J. Muller is a radiation and mutation expert.)
Comment: Despite the evidence that Muller cites in his first sentence, his
philosophical naturalism forces him to infer that all genetic information has
arisen by purely random mutations. As Pierre Paul Grasse has noted, "Directed
by all-powerful selection, chance becomes a sort of providence, which, under
the cover of atheism, is not named but which is secretly worshipped (p. 107)
- Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977)
Evolution of Living Organisms
Academic Press, New York, N.Y.
Richard Lewontin sheds additional light on the presuppositions of materialism:
"Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense
is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the
supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of
some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant
promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community
for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment
to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow
compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on
the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes
to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material
explanations, no matter how counterintuitive, no matter how mystifying to the
uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine
Foot in the door."
- Lewontin, Richard
"Billions and Billions of Demons"
New York Review of Books
January 9, 1997, p. 28
What is commonly called “random mutation” does not in fact occur in a mathematically random pattern. The process of genetic mutation is extremely complex, with multiple pathways, involving more than one system. Current research suggests most spontaneous mutations occur as errors in the repair process for damaged DNA. Neither the damage nor the errors in repair have been shown to be random in where they occur, how they occur, or when they occur. Rather, the idea that mutations are random is simply a widely held assumption by non-specialists and even many teachers of biology. There is no direct evidence for it.
On the contrary, there’s much evidence that genetic mutation vary in patterns. For instance it is pretty much accepted that mutation rates increase or decrease as stress on the cells increases or decreases. These variable rates of mutation include mutations induced by stress from an organism’s predators and competition, and as well as increased mutations brought on by environmental and epigenetic factors. Mutations have also been shown to have a higher chance of occurring near a place in DNA where mutations have already occurred, creating mutation hotspot clusters—a non-random pattern.
Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112)