App
We’ve briefly answered Tenet 2, subdivision c, of Darwin’s theory of macroevolution—that the main agents of evolutionary change in organisms, and from one kind of organism into another, were mutation and natural selection. The assumption that mutations are usually beneficial is inherent in this belief. This assumption is part of what J. C. Sanford calls the “Primary Axiom.”
He emphatically asserts that “people are hurt by mutation…. If we include all genetic predispositions to all pathologies, we must conclude that we are all highly ‘mutant’…. Mutations are the source of immeasurable heartache—in fact, they are inexorably killing each of us….
“Can we say mutations are good? Nearly all health policies are aimed at reducing or minimizing mutation…. How can anyone see mutations as good? Yet according to the Primary Axiom, mutations are good because they create the variation and diversity which allows selection and evolution to occur, creating the information needed for life.” 33
After explaining the important difference between random variation and designed variation, Sanford reminds us that, since in Darwinian evolutionary theory “no genetic variation by design is allowed,” it can thus “very reasonably be argued that random variations are never good.” 34
The higher one goes in classification of organisms, the more genetic information is contained in DNA and genetic material. Yet Sanford tells us, “The overwhelmingly deleterious nature of mutations can be seen by the incredible scarcity of clear cases of information-creating mutations.” 35 After citing graphs by researchers that indicate how “bad” mutations outnumber “good” ones by as much as 100 to one, Sanford assures us, “Everything about the true distribution of mutations argues against their possible role in forward evolution.” 36
Yet, if macroevolution were true, millions or billions of such beneficial, information-adding mutations would have been required for life to have gone from “simple” one-celled organisms to the incredibly complex human body and brain, regulated and controlled by the DNA of humans (with thousands of times the information than that of a one-celled organism)!
Sanford then relates nearly a century of attempts at plant improvement by geneticists inducing mutations, from which “almost no meaningful crop improvement resulted. The effort was for the most part an enormous failure, and was almost entirely abandoned.” 37
“In conclusion, mutations appear to be overwhelmingly deleterious, and even when one may be classified as beneficial in some specific sense it is still usually part of an overall breakdown and erosion of information.” 38
“For many people, including many biologists, natural selection is something like a magic wand. Simply by invoking the words ‘natural selection’—there is no limit what one can imagine accomplishing…. The entire field of population genetics was developed by a small, tightly knit group of people who were utterly and radically committed to the Primary Axiom…. For the most part, other biologists do not even understand their work—but accept their conclusions ‘by faith.’ Yet it is these same population geneticists themselves who have exposed some of the most profound limitations of natural selection. Because natural selection is not a magic wand but is a very real phenomenon, it has very real capabilities and very real limitations. It is not ‘all-powerful.’ 39
The idea that the human species is the result of billions of beneficial mutations to what started out as a single-celled protozoan is totally debunked! Mutations almost never add information the way they would be required to if Darwin’s theory of macroevolution were true. The few that have ever been even thought to be “beneficial” to the organism still constituted a loss or an altering of information, but not an adding of it. We are NOT the result of billions of mutations to any original one-celled life form. Billions of mutations would have resulted in an overall loss of information, not the addition of information that would have been necessary for an upward evolutionary development into thousands of species from one single-celled proto-life form.
Genetics has proven such a thing to be utterly impossible. It NEVER HAPPENED!
Realities Darwinism Can’t Explain
There are whole volumes written by scientists whose own empirical findings are in conflict with the idea of evolution—at least the Darwinian version of it. Most of these researchers do believe in some form of evolution, but their observations simply can’t be explained by the Darwinian paradigm. Let us examine a brief sampling of some of these realities.
“Every cell contains an estimated one billion compounds. That’s as many as 75,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 (75 sextillion) compounds per person—give or take a billion—and among these compounds are approximately five million different kinds of proteins…. [These proteins] can have more than one function or electrical charge, they all know where to go and how to get there, when to act, how fast to react, and when to stop. Nearly every chemical reaction is helped along by one or more of the 3000-plus different enzymes. Some of these chemical reactions take only a millionth of a second.
“The nucleus of each cell contains 23 pairs of very complex chromosomes (DNA), with 100,000 genes that can be further broken down into six billion chemical bases. There are only four kinds of these bases, abbreviated A, G, C, and T; yet these four bases, which are relatively simple compounds, appear in such varying combinations that they tell the cell, and ultimately the body, everything that it needs to know about growing up, surviving, fighting, fleeing, digesting food, breathing, thinking, pumping blood, eliminating wastes, and perpetuating the species. The first few cells in an embryo already know what a person’s height will be, his or her propensity to be obese, the color of his or her eyes, the number of curls in his or her hair, whether he or she will have musical skills, if his or her teeth will grow in crooked, and whether he or she is vulnerable to certain diseases such as breast cancer or Huntington’s chorea. Some scientists call the DNA-coded instructions the Book of Life; it’s a book like no other.
“Each cell has an assigned location, a seemingly lifetime role, hundreds to thousands of tasks to accomplish, and a distinct longevity. Each cell is also programmed to take care of its own needs—as well as the entire being. Proof of this became evident with cloning. If the nucleus from a skin cell is placed inside a female egg after its nucleus has been removed the skin’s (hidden) DNA Book of Knowledge can duplicate an entire individual.” 40 (Bold emphasis added.)
In the mid-Nineteenth Century, when Charles Darwin was doing his research and writing, cells of the body were not known to be much more than tissue building blocks or conduits for body fluids. No one had yet seen the myriad chemical processes that take place inside each cell of all living organisms. It was all too easy to oversimplify how bodily metabolic functions worked. No scientist at that time could have conceived how unfathomably complex the functioning of a single cell is.
It was easy to imagine an original single-celled organism that was so simple it could have spontaneously come to life sometime in the murky past. Today, to any honest, knowledgeable biochemist, such a notion must seem naively childish. We cited earlier the calculated odds against even the necessary proteins having come together by chance, in the right order, as requiring multiple times all the atoms in the known universe—and that still doesn’t give us everything else needed to make the cell function, or the needed DNA so it could reproduce!
