Mutations are Harmful

Mutations Mean Devolution NOT Evolution

Our tour has mentioned this several times: random mutations are harmful, they cause damage. They do not cause life to improve or gain new capabilities or functions.

Mutations are harmful. This fact is obvious, except when we are talking about evolution something happens to our thinking. For example, if mutations provided benefits, helping us to evolve and become better, wouldn't we seek ways to increase mutations? No. We know mutations are harmful so, for example, we avoid nuclear radiation. Some of us even avoid solar radiation. To much sun can cause skin cancer (mutations in the skin). And a nuclear power plant accident is a major catastrophe. We know mutations are harmful.

However, not all mutations are bad. We're talking about random mutations. The kind that supposedly result in evolution. Life has been designed to adapt, within limits, to a changing environment. We actually have preprogrammed mutations built into us.

How can we identify a preprogrammed mutation? In experiments with mice it was noticed that when placed in certain stressful conditions, the mice DNA would mutate so as to adapt the mice to the new conditions. This happened quickly, within a few generations. And it always happened in the same way. The exact same mutation would happen every time, in every mouse lineage. This is impossible for random mutations to accomplish. Geneticists realized they had discovered preprogrammed mutations.

mutations mean devolution

Mutations Mean Devolution NOT Evolution

Scientists have been studying genetic mutations for a long time. What they have noticed is that all random mutations are harmful or neutral. Although the neutral ones don't result in any apparent physical harm, they still degrade the DNA, so they could also be categorized as harmful. However, genetists don't like the word "all." Our knowledge is incomplete. There is always more work to be done. So all we can realistically say is that nearly all random mutations are harmful.

This does not mean these harmful mutations do not provide a benefit. Sickle-cell anemia is a random mutation that damages hemoglobin. The hemoglobin becomes less able to carry oxygen and overall the person is degraded, for example, being more susceptible to infection. But in malaria infested areas sickle-cell anemia provides a huge benefit, immunity to malaria.

Random mutations will never make someone into a superhero. You know that is a fact. You'll never become spiderman

If random mutations are harmful, and since this is a known fact, why does anyone think life can evolve from a single cell organism to the complexity of humanity?

Why? Because it's not about science, observed facts, logic or common sense. What evolution is about is providing a satisfying way to deny God, while pretending to be rational, logical, and having common sense. It's simply about people making themselves feel good, while they reject God.

"He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil. For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God.” - John 3:18-21

mutation, a few benefits

The Experts Speak

"Several lines of experimental evidence show that novel functional genes and proteins cannot be formed de novo by chance processes... there are narrow limits to the changes that random processes can achieve. They can never convert one gene to a basically different gene, one protein structure to a different structure, nor one microorganism to a different one. Thus evolution is a story without a mechanism.". - Matti Leisola (enzyme bioengineer), "Evolution: A Story Without a Mechanism," Theistic Evolution, 2017, page 140

"As Darwin himself knew, there are three very general ways in which an organism can adapt: (1) it can gain a new ability; (2) it can lose an old one; or (3) it can tweak or modify something it already has... In any case, it will never have greater genetic wealth that what it inherited. That, at least, is the picture painted by the very best, most sophisticated evolutionary experiments the biological revolution has produced to date. - Michael Behe, "Darwin Devolves", 2019, pages 179 and 197

"Virtually all the "beneficial mutations" known are only equivocally beneficial, not unequivocally beneficial. In bacteria, several mutations in cell wall proteins may deform the proteins enough so that antibiotics cannot bind to the mutant bacteria. This creates bacterial resistance to that antibiotic. Does this support evolutionary genetic theory? No, since the mutant bacteria do not survive as well in the wild as the native (non-mutant) bacteria." - Dr. Barry Maddox, "Mutations: The Raw Material For Evolution?, 2007

"The majority of mutations are "neutral mutations" that do not cause any detectable change in the phenotype or body of the animal. These mutations can only be detected by DNA sequencing and are not candidates for evolutionary processes at all. Since there is no phenotypic change, natural selection cannot even remotely select for them. And they are not totally neutral, but are rather subtly deleterious because they degrade the genetic code." - Dr. Barry Maddox, "Mutations: The Raw Material For Evolution?, 2007

There is no evidence that mutations, that could result in evolutionary processes, actually exist. Mutations are uniformly harmful at the molecular level.

Next: BBC's Proof Humans Evolved