1. Isn't it possible that slight changes produced by mutations could add up over many generations? Doesn't this explain how evolution could form new structures and organs and even entirely new kinds of plants and animals over long periods of time?

A mutation is a random change in a gene. Every individual organism inherits a set of genes from its parent or parents. Most genes contain coded instructions for building the thousands of different protein molecules found in living cells. The average gene contains 600 to 1800 precisely ordered code letters. A mutation which changes, adds, or subtracts a single letter can change the coded message and thus modify the resulting protein. A very slight change -- in fact most changes in a protein molecule -- can cause it to function poorly or not at all. As a result the organism usually is not as viable (able to live) as the wild strain of the organism before mutation, and many mutations are lethal (deadly). Geneticists have concluded that the vast majority of visible mutations are disadvantageous for the organism. Sir Julian Huxley estimated that perhaps less than one-tenth percent of all mutations could be advantageous to an organism.¹ This cannot be quantitatively demonstrated by experiment, however. Of the remainder some are apparently neutral, but the majority either weaken or kill the individual.²

The pressures of the environment and the necessities of life tend to eliminate from the population those mutations that lower the ability of the organism to reproduce itself. This effect is called natural selection. Thus natural selection is seen to be a conservative process which tends to preserve the normal wild type in the population and to eliminate most alterations.

According to the current theory, however, the tiny percentage of beneficial mutations and those which are neutral provide the new design information. These, when added to many other mutations occurring in the course of many generations, result in a population better adapted to the environment. Supposedly this leads to new structures and organs and even to entirely new creatures. So, for example, reptiles supposedly evolved their scales into feathers and changed into birds.

a. History can't be proved by science.

The alleged historical process of evolution from amoeba to man was not observed by man and cannot be reproduced experimentally. Thus the claimed fossil evidence is only circumstantial (See Chapters 1-5). That two fossils from extinct species are genetically related through a long series of mutations in many generations is an unverifiable assumption in every case. It is often even difficult to demonstrate that two living similar species are genetically related.

b. Biological structures are too complex.

The genetic structure, the proteins coded by the genes, the bodily structures, and the biochemistry and metabolism of all organisms are exceedingly complex and very delicately balanced systems. The theory that such systems could have been produced and can be improved by random mutations is like saying that an electronic computer could be produced and then improved by shooting bullets into a room stuffed full of computer parts.³

c. Wild types stronger than mutated types.

A very few experimentally observed mutations in the fruit fly, Drosophila, reportedly confer slight advantages under special conditions in the laboratory.⁴ However, the observed mutated flies have proved generally inferior to the wild type, and under ordinary conditions populations tend to revert to the wild type. The DDT-resistant populations of houseflies illustrate this fact. They do not reproduce as effectively as the wild type in the absence of DDT.

d. Change is limited in microorganisms.

In the case of microorganisms, many mutations have been observed that reportedly confer advantage in specialized environments -- for example, in the presence of antibiotics. Nevertheless, new species have not been produced, only new strains. Under normal conditions such populations tend to revert back to the original wild type, and bacterial populations tend to have great genetic stability.⁵

e. Mutations only modify what already exists.

Mutations only modify what already already exists, for example, changing size, color, efficiency of operation, etc. The tendency is to preserve, not to innovate.⁶ There is no evidence to prove that a mutation or series of mutations has ever created a new complex structure or organ.

f. Theorists are still arguing.

The actual mechanism of supposed evolution is still a matter of debate among evolutionary theorists. A continuing discussion concerns whether evolution progresses mainly by natural selection of advantageous mutations or by the accumulation of neutral mutations.⁷ If after over a hundred years the specialists can't agree on the essential mechanisms of their theory, perhaps the whole idea is wrong.

g. Conclusion: mutations and natural selection are inadequate.

We conclude that the production of new design information by gene mutations and natural selection is entirely inadequate to explain evolution. This process can bring about only limited variation of already existing designs. The majority of mutations seems to be bad, not creative. The accumulation of mutations appears to be limited, leading to destruction, not to new designs.

h. Chromosome are changes also inadequate.

The other types of genetic changes, such as the translocations and inversions of parts of chromosomes, only rearrange or disorganize already existing design information. Such processes cannot explain evolution of entirely new biodesigns.⁸

i. Theory of new genes inadequate.

A suitable mechanism for forming new genes has yet to be demonstrated with certainty. The popular theory is that a duplicate unused gene -- sometimes termed a floating gene -- can be "preadapted" by random mutations until it becomes useful for another purpose.⁹ That a new gene could thus arise by chance with all of the necessary controls attached to make it operate correctly is hard to imagine. Gene transformations reported in bacteria are all limited to moderate changes in function. In any event, only a new strain, not a new species has resulted.

3. Are there not many examples today of plants and animals that have changed and thereby shown evolution in action?

There is no question that change in populations occurs, but those changes which have been observed are very minor compared to what is needed to make evolution possible.¹⁰ The changes actually observed are merely variations in already existing structures. The uniform testimony from genetics indicates only limited change, and that absolute boundaries exist between different kinds of organisms. This is consistent with the biblical record of the creation of original kinds designed to reproduce each after its kind. The Bible does not precisely define the boundaries of the created kinds, and thus this question is a basis for scientific research.by Christian biologists.

As an example, almost all the Canidae (dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, and jackals) are apparently capable of interbreeding. They must, therefore, belong to the same original kind. Likewise, the various cattle, buffalos, and bison also interbreed, so they must belong to the same kind. But as is well known, there is no interbreeding between dogs and cattle. They are certainly different biblical kinds. In the original creation several different types, having the potential to interbreed, may have been created within an original kind.

4. Is not Kettlewell's moth in England a proven example of evolution in action by means of mutation and natural selection?

Before air pollution associated with the industrial revolution darkly stained the tree bark and killed the light colored lichens on the trees, the moth population was primarily light colored. However, the dark phase apparently existed in the population also.¹¹ As the trees gradually grew darker, birds could better see the light colored moths to pick them off the tree bark. So the population became dominated by the dark colored moths.

The frequency of the dark phase allele of the color gene increased in the population gene pool and that of the light phase allele decreased. Nevertheless, the species, Biston betularia, remains the same.¹² And now that the English air is being cleaned up, it is reported that the proportion of light colored moths is again on the increase. The case of Kettlewell's moths demonstrates natural selection in action, but not evolution of a new kind of insect. This is evidence for amoeba-to-man evolution only to one who already believes. And that is what evolution is, a belief, just as much as is creation.

5. Do scientists know how new species are produced in nature?

In 1952 Prof. Richard B. Goldschmidt at the University of California at Berkeley wrote:

...It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutations. It is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations....Neither has anyone witnessed the production of a new specimen of a higher taxonomic category by selection of micromutants. ...Neither has anyone witnessed the production of a new specimen of a higher taxonomic category by selection of micromutants.¹³

The formation of new species is not evolution, for it occurs with only minor changes in the structure of organisms. Thirty years later Guy L. Bush wrote:

Although the importance of speciation is clear and convincing, the processes involved are, for the most part, unknown.¹⁴

6. Formation of new species is a part of the creation explanation of life.

Wald, George, Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, Moorehead & Kaplan, eds. (Philadelphia: Wistar Inst. Press, 1967), pp. 18, 19.

...I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance....The restrictions are enormous.

References

1 Huxley, Julian, Evolution in Action (Harper Bros., New York, 1953), p. 41.

2 Wills, Christopher, Scientific American, 222, March 1970, p. 98.

3 Crow, James F., Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 14, Jan. 1958, pp. 19-20, quoted in The Genesis Flood by John C. Whitcomb, Jr., and Henry M. Morris., p.401.

4 Klotz, John W., Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, 1970), pp. 262-265.

5 Moore, Jerry P., Creation Research Soc. Quarterly, 10, March 1974, pp. 187-190.

6 Simpson, G.G., Biology and Man (Harcourt, Brace World, New York, 1969), p. 127; Williams, George C., Adaptation and Natural Selection (Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, N.J., 1966), pp. 54, 139

7 Weinberg, Janet H., Science News, 107, 22 Feb. 1975, pp. 124-127.

8 Klotz, John W., Genes, Genesis, and Evolution (Concordia Publishing House, St. Louis, MO, 1970), pp. 291-313.

9 Campbell, J.H., et al., The Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, U.S., 70, 1973, pp. 1841-1845.

10 Mayr, Ernst, Population, Species, and Evolution (Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1970). The variations cited by Mayr are of this limited type.

11 Bishop, A.J. and Cook, L.M., Scientific American, 232, Jan. 1975, pp. 90-99.

12 Matthews, L. Harrison, Introduction to Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (J.M. Dent & Sons Ltd., London, 1971), p. xi.

13 Goldschmidt, Richard B., Amer. Scientist, 40, 1952, p.97.

14 Bush, Guy L., "What Do We Really Know About Speciation?" in Perspectives on Evolution, R. Milkman, Ed. (Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass., 1976), p. 119.