Mutations - How Big The Changes?

The assumption is that these genes, which provide the inherited characteristics we get from our ancestors, occasionally becomes affected by unusual pairing, chemical damage, or other influences, causing them to produce an unusual change in one of the offspring. This is referred to as mutation. Through gradual changes wrought in the various species through mutation it is assumed by the evolutionists, which became an amphibian, the a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. Species are not fixed in the eyes of an evolutionist... families are forever drifting over into another higher form as time progresses.

This means that all the fossil records of animal history should reveal an utter absence of precise family boundries. Everything should be in the process of changing into something else -- with literally hundreds of millions of half-developed fish trying to become amphibious, and reptiles halfway transformed into birds, and mammals looking like half-apes or man.

Now everybody knows that instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists have found exactly the opposite. Not one single drifting, changing life-form has been located in all the years that fossils have been studied. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind as DNA/chromosomes-science dictates should happen and absolutely refuses to cooperate with the demands of modern evolutionists. Most people would give up and change their theory when faced with such a crushing, deflating blow, but not the evolutionist, who still searches for that illusive missing link which could at least prove that he hasn't been 100% wrong.

But let's look at the vehicle which the evolutionists have depended upon to provide the possibility of the drastic changes required by their theory. Sir Julian Huxley, a principal spokesman for evolution said this: "Mutation provides the raw material of evolution." Again he said, "Mutation is the ultimate source of all...heritable variation." [ Evolution in Action, p. 38 ] Professor Ernst Mayr, another leader of the evolutionists, made this statement: "Yet it must not be forgotten that mutation is the ultimate source of all genetic variation found in natural populations and the only raw material available for natural selection to work on." [ Animal Species and Evolution, p. 170 ]

Keep this clearly in mind: Evolutionists say that mutation is absolutely essential to provide the inexorable upgrading of species which changed the simpler forms into more complex forms. BUT -- the scientific fact is that muation could NEVER accomplish what evolution demands of it, for several reasons. As all sceintists agree, successful mutations (survivable) are VERY rare. Huxley guesses that only about one in a hundred thousand is a mutant. Secondly, when they do occur, they are almost certain to be harmful or deadly to the organism. In other words, the vast majority of such mutations lead towards extinction instead of evolution; they make the organism WORSE instead of better. Huxley admits: "The great majority of mutant genes are harmful in their effect on the organism." [ ibid. p.39 ]

Other scientists, including Darwin himself, conceded that most mutants are recessive and degenerative; therefore, they would actually be eliminated by natural selection rather than effect any significant improvement in the organism. Professor G.G. Simpson, one of the elite spokesmen for evolution, writes about multiple, simulataneous mutations and reports that the mathematical likelihood of getting good evolutionary results would occur only once in 274 billon years. ( Remember the age of the Earth: 5 billion. ) And that is assuming 100 million individuals reproducing a new generation everyday. He concludes by saying: "Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution." [ The Major Features of Evolution, p. 96 ]

Counfusing? They say mutation is NECESSARY to make the changes required by the theory, yet they confess that it is SCIENTIFICALLY IMPOSSIBLE for multiple mutations to make the changes. There's the second point of contradiction made with true science.

Mutations, of course, do effect minor changes within the basic KINDS, but those changes are LIMITED, never producing a new family. They can explain many VARIETIES of both plant and animals but can never explain the creation of basic kinds as required by evolution.