Home / Science VS Evolution / PDF /Encyclopedia  /Pathlights Home / Bookstore


Here is more scientific evidence clearly showing that mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.


The One "Beneficial" Mutation: One mutation which is touted as helpful, but which is actually as deadly as the rest
Mutation Research: It is the in-depth mutation research, carried on for most of this century, which has settled the matter
Mammoth Mutation Theory: As all the other theories shatter, in desperation a really wayout theory is grasped
Conclusion: Mutations cannot possibly produce evolutionary change

Page numbers without book references refer to the book, MUTATIONS, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on
, only 164 statements are by creationists.


Yes, evolutionists have one beneficial mutation that they can cite—as proof that positive, helpful mutations do occasionally occur.

It is sickle-cell anemia, which is a mutation which occurred in someone in Africa centuries ago. Was that mutation beneficial? Far from it; it damaged the red blood cells so they became quarter-moon shaped instead of round. This produced a special type of anemia. The person with sickle-cell anemia cannot properly absorb food and oxygen.

How then can anyone call that mutation beneficial?

Well, the evolutionists do it—on the basis of the fact that people with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to contract malaria from mosquitoes!

Really now, that is begging the question! If I had bulbar polio, I would be less likely to be killed in an auto accident—because I would be paralyzed on a bed and less likely to be riding in a car. But one would not say that polio was, for that reason, beneficial!

In return for the advantage of being 25 percent less likely to contract malaria, 25 percent of the children of people, in Africa, with sickle-cell anemia—will die! What advantage is that?—pp. 21, 23.


As mentioned earlier, researchers spent most of this century trying to get mutations to produce new species. The problem, of course, was the fact that they are so rare.—p. 23.

The new discovery. But a major breakthrough came in 1928, when *Muller discovered that X rays could speed up mutations. Whereas, in nature, there might be one mutation, now the number could be increased a millionfold—and focused on just one organism!

How wonderful, the evolutionists thought! Now we shall be able to create new species!

Instead, they damaged, mutilated, and killed experimental insects, animals, and birds for decades—without accomplishing anything worthwhile.—pp. 23-24.

The great fruit fly experiment. The humble fruit fly was selected as the best single creature to torture with radiation. The reason was its extremely short reproductive cycle. A new generation of fruit flies occurs every few days. In addition, the creature is large enough that it can be seen far easier than worms or microbes.

Since the late 1920s, hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated with X rays and nuclear radiation. —Yet in all that time, two facts have emerged: (1) They have been damaged, not helped. (2) No new species have been produced. The fruit flies have remained fruit flies—in spite of experiencing countless millions of mutations.—pp. 24-25.

Resistant strains. It has been said, by evolutionists, that "resistant strains" of bacteria are the result of mutations. These are bacteria which are more resistant to the wonder drugs.

Yet the truth is that every species has a variational range of traits. Some of those bacteria could resist the drugs while others could not.

When the drugs were applied, the nonresistant strains died off, and the resistant strains survived. What the physicians were doing, by administering drugs, was to breed new, stronger strains of bacteria! Mutations had nothing to do with the process.—pp. 25-26.

The Benzar studies. In the early 1960s, *Benzar discovered a chemical which could incredibly increase the number of mutations. This was a great breakthrough in science for, henceforth, the data could be collected much more rapidly and thoroughly.

As a result, they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful!

In addition, they discovered that the slightest mutational change in the DNA ruins the code entirely. Even the simplest organism is damaged when its DNA is struck by a mutation.—p. 26.


We noted earlier that some evolutionists adhered to the natural selection, as the cause of cross-species changes. Later, when mutations were discovered and the inadequacies in natural selection were realized, many turned to mutations as the solution.

But, later still, several prominent evolutionists turned to a new variation on the mutation theory:

They came up with the "hopeful monster" theory. This is the idea that, once every 50,000 years or so, a gigantic set of helpful, positive mutations occurs all at once: a lizard lays an egg and a beaver hatches from it!

Flaws in the theory. Here are some of the reasons why this mutation theory is desperately impossible:

1: It never happens. We never see the theory in action.—p. 27.

2: Two required. Every time a hopeful monster is produced, two would have to come into being within a few miles of each other: a male and female. Yet, according to *Gould, this rare event only happens once every 50,000 years.—p. 27.

3: Massive mutations required. Multi-billion mutations would suddenly have to occur each time a hopeful monster was produced.—pp. 26-27.

4: All positive. Mutations are always negative and, generally, lethal; but these would have to be all positive.—p. 27.

5: All dovetailed and according to plan. All these mutations would have to fit perfectly together in a harmonious whole: body organs, bones, head, feet, DNA, and all the rest.—p. 29.

6: It is a mathematical impossibility. It sure is.—p. 27.

7: Not frequent enough. *Gould set the hopeful monsters 50,000 years apart, to help cover over the fact that they are not occurring today. But one new species every 50,000 years would only yield 20 new species every million years! Yet there are immense numbers of species in the world right now.—pp. 26-27, 29.


Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility. Only God can make plants and animals. No one else can, and senseless, random, harmful mutations cannot do it either.

Give God your life, and He will give you a happier life than you could otherwise have.


Forward to the next topic in this series: