Naturalists claim that evolution is driven by beneficial mutations. Is that a plausible explanation for the diversity found in nature? We’ll see.

Induced Mutations

Leading geneticists, Thomas Morgan and Herman Muller conducted a lengthy study of fruit flies (drosophila) looking for traces of evolution. But generation after generation, the uncooperative flies refused to evolve. They eventually solved the problem, or at least they thought they had. They subjected a pure strain of fruit flies to chemical and radiation treatments. The result was mutilated flies. The flies developed yellow, brown, or purple eyes; bulging, flat or dented golden eyes. Some flies had no eyes.

Other anomalies appeared. The flies came with fine or thick hair, or with curly or disheveled hair. On the other hand, some were bald. Some flies were without antennae. The variation in their wing patterns was striking. Some wings were wide, others were truncated. Occasionally, the wings were so small that the fly could not fly. There were big flies, little flies, active flies, and lazy flies. The list of rarities goes on.

These mutilations were hailed as a success. Many naturalists claimed that the matter was settled once and for all. Mutation is the driving force behind evolution.

Everyone agrees that mutations occur in nature. And these geneticists showed that through chemicals and radiation man could induce mutations. But to say that mutations result in new life forms is an entirely different matter. Experiments with fruit flies certainly don’t prove it.

Consider the facts. Most of the induced mutations killed the subjects. Some died immediately; others had shorter lives. If the fly did survive, it was often sterile or its young were too weak to survive. Mutations that were not harmful were neutral at best, producing only trivial results. Neither mutation could honestly be called beneficial.

These experiments continued for 17 years. What did they really prove? Little more than we already knew. That is, all living things reproduce according to their own kind. Regardless of how those fruit flies have been treated or mistreated, all they are going to produce is other fruit flies. It doesn’t seem to matter how many generations are observed.

Considering that a new generation of fruit flies matures in less than two weeks, the geneticists of the room of “flies” studied more than 442 generations of fruit flies in 17 years. They did everything they could think of to make them evolve into something else. they didn’t

Here’s a question for you: Do you think those scientists would have abandoned their 17-year project if they still had any hope of engineering a new species? No, I don’t think they do either. Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned from the fruit fly experiment is the remarkable stability of this species.

Another question: If positive or beneficial mutations are the driving force behind evolution, why couldn’t the “fly” room find a single unequivocal positive mutation in 17 years and 442 generations of experiments?

natural mutations

What do we know about genetic mutations that affect humans? According to Reader’s Digest, the ABC of the human body, scientists have identified 1,800 diseases transmitted by defective genes. They state that of all babies born alive today, approximately 0.7 percent suffer from a genetic defect inherited from the parents.

But those are the ones that live. Other genetic disorders result in miscarriages. They are dead on arrival and few records and for the most part no records are kept.

In the face of 1,800 known genetic disabilities, plus an unknown number of fatal birth defects, what can we put on the bright side of the human mutation book? Not much. Believe it or not, the best example geneticists can come up with is sickle cell anemia. That, we know, is a genetic error that, without medical treatment, often leads to death.

That doesn’t sound very beneficial, does it? But in a way, it is.

Sickle cell anemia is found in those parts of Asia and Africa where a severe form of malaria caused by parasites was and still is largely endemic. Individuals with one sickle cell chromosome from either the father or the mother are immune to both malaria and sickle cell disease.

On the other hand, those who receive two copies of sickle cell trait, one from each parent, usually die prematurely from anemia. As you can see, it’s a mixed blessing.

Skin pigmentation is occasionally cited as an example of a beneficial mutation. Most authorities disagree. They believe that the original population had a variety of genes that allowed for a wide range of pigmentation. The intense sunlight of the equator favored those with higher pigmentation. Less intense sunlight from northern regions favored those with less pigmentation.

If that’s the case, then we can credit natural selection for mating the various populations, however, mutations had nothing to do with it.

Neither sickle cell anemia nor skin pigmentation turn out to be a credible example of beneficial mutations. The harmful effects of mutations are obvious, but where are the positives?

The World Almanac tells us that the world population numbered about 200 million people in the year 1 AD. C. By 1650, that number rose to 500 million; 200 years later that figure doubled (1850: 1 billion); it doubled again in 1930 (2 billion); it doubled again in 1975 (4 billion); and by the year 2000 it reached the level of 6 billion people.

From 4,000 BC, when the Sumerians began keeping records called pictographs on clay logs, to today, we have had roughly 6,000 years of recorded history. Several billion people have populated the world during this period. It is interesting to note that, during all this time and with all these generations, not a single example of an absolute beneficial mutation has emerged in humanity.

If we extend our scope to include plants and animals, nature has not provided us with any obvious, permanent, positive mutation either. We found no observations of one species mutating into another. And we find no eyewitness accounts of any plant or animal growing a new organ, internal or external.

We are told that the approximately two million species of life slowly evolved into their current complex configurations through a series of thousands, perhaps millions, of genetic errors.

All of those positive mutations that propelled single-celled organisms into sequoias, elephants, and whales occurred sometime in the misty dawn before man’s watch began. Ever since humans came on the scene to record the achievements of evolution, they have done little more than make some minor and superficial adjustments to some species.

The vast majority have not changed at all.

Naturalists have an easy answer to this criticism. “Six thousand years is too short a time to see the progress of evolution.” Maybe. But that sounds hollow. If beneficial errors really are the creative force that has made every living thing what it is, then it is reasonable to expect some direct examples to emerge somewhere given six thousand years, two million species, and untold opportunities in the form of people, animals, and animals. and plants.

But none have appeared. Evolution must have been on vacation for the last six thousand years.

Question to consider: Could it be that positive mutations have not been observed because they simply do not occur?