|
Random genetic mutation: down the memory hole!
As everyone knows, Darwin’s theory of evolution, expanded and refined by the discovery of Mendel’s research on genes in 1900, is that new species comes into existence as the result of (1) random genetic mutations, which are then (2) naturally selected, meaning that if the genetic mutations result in the possessor of those mutations having more offspring than other members of its species, the mutations spread and become dominant. (Darwin, not knowing about Mendel’s work, spoke of “variation” rather than genetic mutation.) Now here is something remarkable. In every celebratory article on Darwin and on evolutionary theory that I’ve read over the last two weeks, there has been no mention of random genetic mutation—no reference to one of the two key principles of the Darwinian theory of evolution. Over and over, evolutionary theory is described in terms of “natural selection.” But how the features that get naturally selected came into being in the first place is never mentioned. Only natural selection is mentioned. For example, in Carol Kaesuk Yoon’s February 9 New York Times article, entitled, “Genes Offer New Clues in Old Debate on Species’ Origins,” which I discussed and quoted in its entirety here, there is not a single mention of “random genetic mutation,” “genetic mutation,” or even “mutation.” Yet in the same article, “natural selection” or “selection” is spoken of repeatedly as the mechanism of evolution. Similarly, in Carl Safina’s article in the same issue of the Times, “Darwinism Must Die So That Evolution May Live,” the word “mutation” does not appear. The word “random” does not appear. The closest Safina comes to random genetic mutation is in the following two passages:
Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity (which gave Darwin’s idea of natural selection a mechanism—genetics—by which it could work); the discovery of DNA (which gave genetics a mechanism and lets us see evolutionary lineages); developmental biology (which gives DNA a mechanism); studies documenting evolution in nature (which converted the hypothetical to observable fact); evolution’s role in medicine and disease (bringing immediate relevance to the topic); and more. [Emphasis added.]Thus, even when Safina speaks of the discovery of genes and says that it was vital to making Darwin’s theory acceptable, he doesn’t say what this genetic mechanism is. He doesn’t say, “random genetic mutations.” He doesn’t say, “accidental bad copies of genes.” (That’s what genetic mutations are, bad copies of genes.) He just says “genetics.” Here is the other passage where Safina mentions “genetics”:
Darwin penned the magnum opus. Yet there were weaknesses. Individual variation underpinned the idea, but what created variants? Worse, people thought traits of both parents blended in the offspring, so wouldn’t a successful trait be diluted out of existence in a few generations? Because Darwin and colleagues were ignorant of genes and the mechanics of inheritance, they couldn’t fully understand evolution.“A giant step toward understanding evolutionary mechanics.” And what do these important “evolutionary mechanics” consist of? Safina doesn’t say. He never mentions random genetic mutations, one of the two building blocks of modern evolutionary theory. The closest he comes is “DNA, the structure and mechanism of variation and inheritance.” But how does this variation occur? He doesn’t say. He is silent about randomness. And so it goes, in one evolution-touting article after another. Why is random genetic mutation, the very basis of the Darwinian theory of evolution, being ignored, even in the midst of the greatest celebration of Darwinian evolution ever? Because, as I have shown in numerous articles, accidental mutations in genes cannot explain the sorts of changes that would have to occur in order for new organs and species to come into existence. It is inherently impossible that random accidental changes in genes can lead to the appearance of copulation, or of internal fertilization, or of the bombardier beetle, or of the production of honey by honey bees, or of innumerable other biological innovations and entities. While the Darwinians claim to deny this statement, they know how implausible the Darwinian theory is to normal thinking people when it’s presented to them in plain terms. And that is why they avoid telling readers what the theory actually says. Ask yourself: if the Darwinian theory of evolution were true, would its exponents go to such lengths to conceal it, even in the midst of praising it?
Email entry |