Page 148 - Darwinism Refuted

DARWINISM REFUTED

One rule, put forward by R. A. Fisher, one of the last century's best
known geneticists, and based on observations, clearly invalidates this
hypothesis. Fisher states in his book The Genetical Theory of Natural

Selection that the likelihood that a particular mutation will become fixed in
a population is inversely proportional to its effect on the phenotype. 176 Or,
to put it another way, the bigger the mutation, the less possibility it has of
becoming a permanent trait within the group.
It is not hard to see the reason for this. Mutations, as we have seen in
earlier chapters, consist of chance changes in genetic codes, and never
have a beneficial influence on organisms' genetic data. Quite the contrary:
individuals affected by mutation undergo serious illnesses and
deformities. For this reason, the more an individual is affected by
mutation, the less possibility it has of surviving.
Ernst Mayr, a fervent advocate of Darwinism, makes this comment
on the subject:
The occurrence of genetic monstrosities by mutation … is well substantiated,
but they are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only
as 'hopeless'. They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the
slightest chance of escaping elimination through stabilizing selection … the
more drastically a mutation affects the phenotype, the more likely it is to
reduce fitness. To believe that such a drastic mutation would produce a
viable new type, capable of occupying a new adaptive zone, is equivalent to
believing in miracles … The finding of a suitable mate for the 'hopeless
monster' and the establishment of reproductive isolation from the normal
members of the parental population seem to me insurmountable
difficulties. 177
It is obvious that mutations cannot bring about evolutionary
development, and this fact places both neo-Darwinism and the punctuated
equilibrium theory of evolution in a terrible difficulty. Since mutation is a
destructive mechanism, the macromutations that proponents of the
punctuated equilibrium theory talk about must have "macro" destructive
effects. Some evolutionists place their hopes in mutations in the regulatory
genes in DNA. But the feature of destructiveness which applies to other
mutations, applies to these, as well. The problem is that mutation is a
random change: any kind of random change in a structure as complex as
genetic data will lead to harmful results.

146