Mutations are akin to ‘making mistakes in the letters when copying a written text’. Such mistakes cannot give rise to any information but merely damage such information as already exists
Mutations are usually defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an “accident”, and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, mutations cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is usually harmful. The changes effected by mutations can be experienced by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature. The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B G Ranganathan states:
“First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.”
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver commented on the report prepared by the committee on Genetic effects of atomic radiation, a committee formed to investigate mutations that might have caused by nuclear weapons used in the second world war:
“Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect – evolution to higher forms of life – result from mutations practically all of which are harmful.”
Every effort put into “generating a useful mutation” has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor wrote:
“It is a striking but not much mentioned fact that though geneticists have been breeding fruit flies for sixty years or more in labs all round the world – flies which produce a new generation every eleven days – they have never yet seen the emergence of a new species or even a new enzyme.”
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 such as 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 noted the following in a scientific article about mutations: “Literally thousands of human beings 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 Margan’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.”
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 strangely evaluated 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 thus obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grasse, former president of the French academy of sciences, is quite clear on this point in a comment he made about mutations. Grasse 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. Grasse 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 pre exists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follows. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.”
So for that reason, as Grasse puts it, “No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”
—The writer is a master’s student of Zoology at Central University of Kashmir. Adeel01.firstname.lastname@example.org