Page 231 - The Cambrian Evidence that Darwin Failed to Comprehend

HARUN YAHYA

Each protein structure is based upon a very particular nucleo-
tide sequence, and every cell contains tens of thousands of proteins.
Mutations consisting of random changes have no ability to bring
about such large amounts of information.
Pierre Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of
Sciences, compared mutations to spelling mistakes in the copying of
a written text, which comment is particularly illuminating. Spelling
mistakes cannot represent information, only damage information
that already exists. As Grassé explains:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary
to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations to-
ward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in
disorder, no matter how. . . . As soon as some disorder, even slight, ap-
pears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no
possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy. 174
For that reason, “No matter how numerous they may be, muta-
tions do not produce any kind of evolution,” to quote from another
statement by Grassé. 175
Even in 1977, when Grassé published this statement, it was per-
fectly well known that natural selection was not a mechanism that
caused organisms to evolve. In 1982, Colin Patterson, senior paleon-
tologist at London’s Natural History Museum, said:
No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms of natural se-
lection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the current argument
in neo-Darwinism is about this question. 176
In the 1980s, in short, although Darwinism’s mechanisms of
natural selection and random mutation served no purpose and were
of no use, they were on display for want of a better alternative, like
junk in an antique shop.
The emergence of the facts regarding Burgess Shale and the lat-

Adnan Oktar

229