Darwinists' confessions about mutations and the words of scientists

First, genuine mutations are very RARE in nature. Secondly, most mutations are HARMFUL since they are RANDOM, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highy ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.¹

Not long ago, we thought we knew how species formed. We believed that the process almost always started with complete isolation of populations. It often occurred after a population had gone through a severe "genetic bottleneck", as might happen after a pregnant female was swept off to a remote island and her offspring mated with each other. The beauty of this so-called "founder effect" model was that it could be tested in the lab. In reality, IT JUST DIDN'T HOLD UP. Despite evolutionary biologists' best efforts, NOBODY HAS EVEN GOT CLOSE TO CREATING A NEW SPECIES FROM A FOUNDER POPULATION. What's more, as far as we know, no new species has formed as a result of humans releasing small numbers of organisms into alien environments. (George Turner, "How Are New Species Formed?", New Scientist, June 14, 2003, p. 36)

As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. THERE IS NO POSSIBLE COMPROMISE BETWEEN THE PHENOMENON OF LIFE AND ANARCHY. ²

... The insights of molecular biology have revealed a complexity at every stage of life's processes such that, if we were forced to rely on random mutation to produce them step by step, in the words of Nobel laureate de Duve, "ETERNITY WOULD NOT SUFFICE. " ³

It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations [one or only a few mutations]. In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature."(Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, Vol. 40 (January 1952), p. 94)

How do major evolutionary changes get started? Does anyone still believe that populations sit around for tens of thousands of years, waiting for favorable mutations to occur (and just how does that happen, by the way?), then anxiously guard them until enough accumulate for selection to push the population toward new and useful change? There you have the mathematical arguments of Neo-Darwinism that Waddington and others rightly characterized as “vacuous. (Kevin Padian, "The Whole Real Guts of Evolution", Review of Genetics, Paleontology and Macroevolution, By Jeffrey S. Levinton, p. 77)

No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. (Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, 1977, p. 88)

The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: A single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. . . . There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not indulge in it.  (Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, p. 103)

High-energy radiations, such as X-rays, increase the rate of mutation. Mutations induced by radiation are random, in the sense that they arise independently of their effects on the fitness of the individuals which carry the m. Randomly induced mutations are usually deleterious. In a precisely organized and complex system like the genome of an organism, a random change will most frequently decrease, rather than increase, the orderliness or useful information of the system (Francisco J. Ayala, "Genotype Environment and Population Numbers", Science, vol.162 (27 December 1968), p. 1456)

Almost every mutation is harmful, and it is the individual who pays the price. Any human activity that tends to increase the mutation rate must therefore raise serious health and moral problems for man. (James F. Crow, "Ionizing Radiation and Evolution," Scientific American, vol. 201 (September 1959), p. 138)

A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair—just as a random interchange of connections [wires] in a television set is not likely to improve the picture ("Genetic Effects of Radiation", Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, No: 14, p. 19-20)

Mutations occur at random, not because it would be convenient to have one. Any chance alteration in the composition and properties of a highly complex operating system is not likely to improve its manner of operation, and most mutations are disadvantageous for this reason. There is a delicate balance between an organism and its environment which a mutation can easily upset. One could as well expect that altering the position of the foot brake or the gas pedal at random would improve the operation of an automobile. (Frederick S. Hulse, The Human Species, New York: Random House, 1971, p. 61-62)

One of the oldest problems in evolutionary biology remains largely unsolved. Which mutations generate evolutionarily relevant phenotypic variation? What kinds of molecular changes do they entail?  (http://www.icr.org/headlines/ darwinvindicated.html; Was Darwin Really "Vindicated"?, Frank Sherwin, Institute for Creation Research, April 30, 2001)

In seeking an answer to the question of whether an infinitely complex biological process, an organic order, can emerge as the result of aimless, purposeless and random mutations, our power of judgment will remain fairly pedestrian. . . . Indeed, would we not be going much too far and corrupting those who think otherwise to claim that even if evolution had sufficient time for the emergence of new orders, new mechanisms of the kind we are discussing, and that new organization and order was the product of coincidences? If it is not inappropriate to say so, these strange entities were like a deformed neonate. They were the result of a mutation. The results of mutation have almost always given birth to a catastrophe (Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi 2, [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2”], Alan Publishing, November 1996, Istanbul, Translation: Veysel Atayman, pp. 66-69)

At this point, objectors tend to propose a counter-thesis to the idea that the number of mutations will not be sufficiently large from the point of view of providing a sufficient quantity of significant and fit for purpose characteristics by entirely coincidental means. In fact, according to the laws of probability, not even large numbers of mutations can avoid being harmful and even deadly, let alone support development. (Hoimar Von Ditfurth, Dinozorların Sessiz Gecesi, [“The Silent Night of the Dinosaurs 2”] 6, p.97)

The information that resides in organisms that are alive today . . . is far more refined than the work of all the world’s great poets combined. The chance that a random change of a letter or word or phrase would improve the reading is remote; on the other hand, it is very likely that a random hit would be harmful. It is for this reason that many biologists view with dismay the proliferation of nuclear weapons, nuclear power plants, and industrially generated mutagenic (mutation-producing) chemicals. (Mahlon B. Hoagland, The Roots of Life: A Layman's Guide To Genes, Evolution, and the Ways of Cells, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981, p. 64)

You’ll recall we learned that almost always, a change in an organism’s DNA is detrimental to it; that is, it leads to a reduced capacity to survive. By way of analogy, random additions of sentences to the plays of Shakespeare are not likely to improve them! . . . The principle that DNA changes are harmful by virtue of reducing survival chances applies whether a change in DNA is caused by a mutation or by some foreign genes we deliberately add to it. (The Roots of Life: A Layman's Guide To Genes, Evolution, and the Ways of Cells, Houghton Mifflin Co., 1981, p. 153)

Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are necessary parts of the process of evolution. How can a good effect—evolution to higher forms of life—result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? (Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123, 29 June, 1956, p. 1159)

Moreover, the mutant genes, in the vast majority of cases, and in all the species so far studied, lead to some kind of harmful effect. In extreme cases the harmful effect is death itself, or loss of the ability to produce offspring, or some other serious abnormality (Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, p. 1158)

Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists’ monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice, mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type (Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London, River Publishing, 1984, p. 70)

It is a striking, but not much mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies for sixty years or more in labs al l around the world—flies which produce a new generation every eleven days—they have never yet seen theemergence of a new species or even a new enzyme. (Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York, Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48)