Page 64 - The Errors the American National Academy of Sciences

The Errors of the American National Academy of Sciences

In conclusion, there is no instance of a mutation that "improves ge-
netic information," and the immunity mechanisms in bacteria do not
represent evidence for the theory of evolution. Professor Spetner states
that the mutations required by the theory of evolution have never been
observed:

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed.
No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by
Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular
level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the
mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for
support? The answer turns out to be NO! 16

Experiments on fruit flies:
As long as a mutation does not change the morphology—that is,

the shape—of an organism, it cannot be the raw material of evolution.
One of the living things in which morphological mutations have been
most intensively studied is the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster). In one
of the many mutations Drosophila was subjected to, the two-winged
fruit fly developed a second pair of wings. Ever since 1978 this four-
winged fruit fly has gained great popularity in textbooks and other evo-
lutionist publications.

However, one point that evolutionist publications hardly ever men-
tion is that the extra wings possess no flight muscles. These fruit flies are
therefore deformed, since these wings represent a serious obstacle to
flight. They also have difficulties in mating. They are unable to survive in
the wild. In his important book Icons of Evolution, the American biologist
Jonathan Wells studies the four-winged fruit fly, together with other clas-
sic Darwinist propaganda tools, and explains in great detail why this ex-
ample does not constitute evidence for evolution.
The truth is that fruit flies constituted no proof of evolution during

62