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


Scientifically, the idea is totally impossible. But evolutionists do not mind. It is clear that evolutionary theory is a myth. God created everything; all the evidence clearly points to it. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts.

CONTENTS: The Monster Mutation Theory: 1

Goldschmidt's Discovery: A dedicated evolutionist discovered that mutations could not produce evolution
Goldschmidt's Desperate Theory: Attacking traditional evolutionary mechanisms, Goldschmidt offered an unworkable alternative
It Stirred an Immense Controversy: Fellow evolutionists recognized that both natural selection and mutations were evolutionary failures
Serious Flaws in the Theory: Why the monster mutation theory is science fiction

This material is excerpted from the book, MUTATIONS
. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the books this Encyclopedia is based on, only 164 statements are by creationists.

You will have a better understanding of the following statements by scientists if you will also read the web page, Mutations.


A dedicated evolutionist discovered that mutations could not produce evolutionary (cross-species) changes.

*Richard Goldschmidt (1878-1958) was an earnest young evolutionist who was anxious to have a part in winning the final conquest for the cause of evolution. While director at the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute fur Biologie in Berlin, he decided to focus his research on mutations. Selecting the gypsy moth (Lymantria), he spent 25 exhausting years engaged in breeding experiments with the moth, producing many generations each year. He was determined to prove evolution! Goldschmidt combined hard work with outstanding scientific ability.

In the early 1930s, a young man, Harold W. Clark, studied under Goldschmidt—and found him to be a disillusioned man.

"During the winter of 1932-1933, while I attended the University of California, at Berkeley, he [Goldschmidt] lectured there on his work. During a question and answer period, someone asked him just how evolution worked. His answer was, that as far as gypsy moths were concerned, it simply did not. Whenever he obtained variations that were very far from the average, they immediately changed back to the norm in a generation or two. He concluded that accumulation of variations leads to diversification strictly within the species and are an adaptation to local conditions. They do not result in the development of major groups. .

"The next morning after his lecture a number of students asked Goldschmidt to go over to the Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, where they had laid out series of different kinds of animals. They pointed to the variation in the series and asked if that did not imply evolution. To the question, Goldschmidt responded that he saw variations all right, but he noted that the rats were still rats, the rabbits were still rabbits, and the foxes were still foxes. He saw no evidence of one kind turning into another."—Harold W. Clark, New Creation (1980), pp. 37-38.

"After perhaps a million breedings of different varieties from around the world, he [Goldschmidt] came to the conclusion that geographic variation is a blind alley that leads only to microevolution within the species. Because of his studies, he had to conclude that for major progressive evolution to occur, large mutations or macromutants must have occurred in the past."—Harold G. Coffin, "Creation: The Evidence from Science," These Times, January 1970, p. 25.


After attacking traditional evolutionary mechanisms, Goldschmidt offered an unworkable alternative.

By 1940, Goldschmidt could take no more. He formulated a theory and published it that year. It represented a powerful attack on evolution, actually one of the most powerful up to its time. In his book, The Material Basis of Evolution, Goldschmit exploded point after point in the ammunition box of evolutionary theory. He literally tore the theory to pieces. And no one knew how to answer him. They still cannot answer him today. The evolutionists were used to creationists and had a standard set of replies for them ("They're just a bunch of religionists," etc.) But Goldschmidt was different; he was a confirmed evolutionist with no leanings toward religion or creationism. He was just an honest atheist who was facing the facts.

He challenged Darwinists to explain such features as hair on mammals, feathers on birds, formation of the gill arches, shells of mollusks, compound eyes, and many other features. After soundly destroying the basis of evolutionary theory, Goldschmidt then announced his new theory: a megaevolution in which one life form suddenly emerged completely out of a different one! He called these suddenly emerging new creatures, "hopeful monsters." He said that it was impossible for natural selection to produce one species out of another or for mutations to gradually do it either!

Instead, Goldschmidt explained that one day some fish laid some fish eggs—and a frog hatched out of one of them! Later on, a frog laid some frog eggs—and a snake hatched out of it! On and on. Goldschmidt asked for even bigger miracles than A.H. Clark proposed!


Fellow evolutionists recognized that, by the 1940s, both natural selection and mutations had been found to be useless as evolutionary mechanisms.

Frankly, the scientifically accurate thrashing he gave to Darwinism and neo-Darwinism combined with the idiotic foolishness of his hopeful monster theory—and left scientists in a daze. All they could do was ridicule him and wish he would disappear.

"It was in 1940, shortly after moving from Berlin to Berkeley, that Goldschmidt published his major work, Material Basis of Evolution. This touched off a controversy that has not yet entirely died down. The public hardly knew that anything was going on; but, within the profession, the Goldschmidt episode was a much greater event than the Scopes Trial."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1974), p. 152. [A detailed analysis of Goldschmidt's book will be found in Willem J. Ouwennel, "Homoeotic Mutants and Evolution," in Creation Research Society Quarterly, December 1975, pp. 141-154.]

Could Goldschmidt be right? As we have already learned elsewhere in this web Encyclopedia, an understanding of (1) the extremely complex nature of DNA, (2) the species padlock of the genetic barrier, (3) the 99 percent harmfulness of mutations, (4) the totally random, unorganized nature of mutations, (5) the rarity of occurrence of even the smallest of mutational changes, much less (6) the sudden 10 billion billion of them—and every one positive—required for just one of Goldschmidt's hopeful monsters to suddenly hatch—totally annihilates his theory.

It should be mentioned here that *O.H. Schindewolf proposed the same basic theory back in the mid-1930s. He also felt that evolution must have occurred by sudden jumps. Prior to *Goldschmidt, he said a reptile laid an egg and hatched out a full-fledged bird—and that explained the reptile-to-bird gap. But it was Goldschmidt—a world-famous geneticist—who was the most successful in proclaiming it.

"There has recently been renewed expression of support for the importance in macroevolution of what Goldschmidt termed the hopeful monster . . At least in principle, Goldschmidt accepted Schindewolf's extreme example of the first bird hatching from a reptile egg. The problem with Goldschmidt's radical concept is the low probability that a totally monstrous form will find a mate and produce fertile offspring."—*Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process (1979), p. 159.


The monster mutation theory is science fiction.

According to this theory, all evolution occurred by immense mutational leaps from one life form to another. It goes something like this:

Every so often a mammoth collection of billions of random mutations has occurred all at once—that has produced a totally new species. For example, two rabbits produced a male bear cub and, coincidentally, just over the hill two other rabbits produced a female bear cub! Both baby bears were able to get enough milk from their mother rabbits so that they grew to maturity and reproduced all the bears in the world. That is how the bears got their start in life.

According to *Goldschmidt, this is the way it worked for every species in the world!

Popularly referred to as the "hopeful monster theory," it taught that one day a reptile laid an egg and a "brown furry thing" hatched out of it. Chance would have it that, when it grew up, this mammal found a mate that had also suddenly by chance hatched out of another reptile egg—and the result was a new species of animal.

Is this science fiction, Greek myth, or Anderson's fairy tales? At any rate, it is believed by a number of modern scientists as a solution to the evolutionary problem. Such is desperation in the extreme.

"After observing mutations in gypsy moths for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes he lamented were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971), p. 33.

But, with the passing of time, the ridiculous idea of multimillion positive mutations gradually died out. What self-respecting evolutionist wanted to be branded an extremist?


To the NEXT PAGE to conclude what you are now reading (Monster Mutation Theory: Part 2 of 2)