Mechanisms of Darwinism
According to the theory of evolution, living things
came into existence by means of coincidences, and developed further as a consequence
of coincidental effects. Approximately 3.8 billion years ago, when no living organisms
existed on earth, the first simple single-celled organisms (prokaryotes) emerged.
Over time, more complex cells (eukaryotes) and multicellular organisms came into
being. In other words, according to Darwinism, the forces of nature built simple
inanimate elements into highly complex and flawless designs.
this claim, one should first consider whether such forces in fact exist in nature.
More explicitly, are there really natural mechanisms which can accomplish evolution
according to the Darwinian scenario?
The neo-Darwinist model, which we shall
take as the mainstream theory of evolution today, argues that life has evolved
through two natural mechanisms: natural selection and mutation. The theory basically
asserts that natural selection and mutation are two complementary mechanisms.
The origin of evolutionary modifications lies in random mutations that take place
in the genetic structures of living things. The traits brought about by mutations
are selected by the mechanism of natural selection, and by this means living things
evolve. However, when we look further into this theory, we find that there is
no such evolutionary mechanism. Neither natural selection nor mutations can cause
different species to evolve into one another, and the claim that they can is completely
concept of natural selection was the basis of Darwinism. This assertion is stressed
even in the title of the book in which Darwin proposed his theory: The Origin
of Species, by means of Natural Selection…
is based on the assumption that in nature there is a constant struggle for survival.
It favors organisms with traits that best enable them to cope with pressures exerted
by the environment. At the end of this struggle, the strongest ones, the ones
most suited to natural conditions, survive. For example, in a herd of deer under
threat from predators, those individuals that can run fastest will naturally survive.
As a consequence, the herd of deer will eventually consist of only fast-running
However, no matter how long this process goes
on, it will not transform those deer into another species. The weak deer are eliminated,
the strong survive, but, since no alteration in their genetic data takes place,
no transformation of a species occurs. Despite the continuous processes of selection,
deer continue to exist as deer.
The deer example
is true for all species. In any population, natural selection only eliminates
those weak, or unsuited individuals who are unable to adapt to the natural conditions
in their habitat. It does not produce new species, new genetic information, or
new organs. That is, it cannot cause anything to evolve. Darwin, too, accepted
this fact, stating that "Natural selection can do nothing until favourable
individual differences or variations occur."7 That is
why neo-Darwinism had to add the mutation mechanism as a factor altering genetic
information to the concept of natural selection.
We will deal
with mutations next. But before proceeding, we need to further examine the concept
of natural selection in order to see the contradictions inherent in it.
A Struggle for Survival?
had been influenced by Thomas Malthus when he developed his thesis of the struggle
for life. But observations and experiments proved Malthus wrong.
The essential assumption of the theory of natural
selection holds that there is a fierce struggle for survival in nature, and every
living thing cares only for itself. At the time Darwin proposed this theory, the
ideas of Thomas Malthus, the British classical economist, were an important influence
on him. Malthus maintained that human beings were inevitably in a constant struggle
for survival, basing his views on the fact that population, and hence the need
for food resources, increases geometrically, while food resources themselves increase
only arithmetically. The result is that population size is inevitably checked
by factors in the environment, such as hunger and disease. Darwin adapted Malthus's
vision of a fierce struggle for survival among human beings to nature at large,
and claimed that "natural selection" is a consequence of this struggle.
research, however, revealed that there was no struggle for life in nature as Darwin
had postulated. As a result of extensive research into animal groups in the 1960s
and 1970s, V. C. Wynne-Edwards, a British zoologist, concluded that living things
balance their population in an interesting way, which prevents competition for
food. Animal groups were simply managing their population on the basis of their
food resources. Population was regulated not by elimination of the weak through
factors like epidemics or starvation, but by instinctive control mechanisms. In
other words, animals controlled their numbers not by fierce competition, as Darwin
suggested, but by limiting reproduction.8
plants exhibited examples of population control, which invalidated Darwin's suggestion
of selection by means of competition. The botanist A. D. Bradshaw's observations
indicated that during reproduction, plants behaved according to the "density"
of the planting, and limited their reproduction if the area was highly populated
with plants.9 On the other hand, examples of sacrifice observed
in animals such as ants and bees display a model completely opposed to the Darwinist
struggle for survival.
In recent years, research
has revealed findings regarding self-sacrifice even in bacteria. These living
things without brains or nervous systems, totally devoid of any capacity for thought,
kill themselves to save other bacteria when they are invaded by viruses.10
examples surely invalidate the basic assumption of natural selection-the absolute
struggle for survival. It is true that there is competition in nature; however,
there are clear models of self-sacrifice and solidarity, as well.
Observation and Experiments
Apart from the theoretical weaknesses mentioned
above, the theory of evolution by natural selection comes up against a fundamental
impasse when faced with concrete scientific findings. The scientific value of
a theory must be assessed according to its success or failure in experiment and
observation. Evolution by natural selection fails on both counts.
Since Darwin's time, there has not been a single shred
of evidence put forward to show that natural selection causes living things
to evolve. Colin Patterson, the senior paleontologist at the British Museum
of Natural History in London and a prominent evolutionist, stresses that
natural selection has never been observed to have the ability to
cause things to evolve:
No one has ever produced a species by the mechanisms
of natural selection. No one has ever got near it, and most of the
current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question.11
Pierre-Paul Grassé, a well-known French zoologist and critic
of Darwinism, has these words to say in "Evolution and Natural Selection,"
a chapter of his book The Evolution of Living Organisms.
The "evolution in action" of J. Huxley
and other biologists is simply the observation of demographic facts, local
fluctuations of genotypes, geographical distributions. Often the species
concerned have remained practically unchanged for hundreds of centuries!
Fluctuation as a result of circumstances, with prior modification of the
genome, does not imply evolution, and we have tangible proof of this in
many panchronic species [i.e. living fossils that remain unchanged for
millions of years].12
A close look at a few "observed examples of natural selection" presented
by biologists who advocate the theory of evolution, would reveal that,
in reality, they do not provide any evidence for evolution.
The True Story of Industrial Melanism
When evolutionist sources are examined, one inevitably sees
that the example of moths in England during the Industrial Revolution is cited
as an example of evolution by natural selection. This is put forward as the most
concrete example of evolution observed, in textbooks, magazines, and even academic
sources. In actuality, though, that example has nothing to do with evolution at
Let us first recall what is actually said: According to
this account, around the onset of the Industrial Revolution in England, the color
of tree barks around Manchester was quite light. Because of this, dark-colored
moths resting on those trees could easily be noticed by the birds that fed on
them, and therefore they had very little chance of survival. Fifty years later,
in woodlands where industrial pollution has killed the lichens, the bark of the
trees had darkened, and now the light-colored moths became the most hunted, since
they were the most easily noticed. As a result, the proportion of light-colored
to dark-colored moths decreased. Evolutionists believe this to be a great piece
of evidence for their theory. They take refuge and solace in window-dressing,
showing how light-colored moths "evolved" into dark-colored ones.
top picture shows trees with moths on them before the Industrial Revolution, and
the bottom picture shows them at a later date. Because the trees had grown darker,
birds were able catch light-colored moths more easily and their numbers decreased.
However, this is not an example of "evolution," because no new species emerged;
all that happened was that the ratio of the two already existing types in an already
existing species changed.
although we believe these facts to be correct, it should be quite clear that they
can in no way be used as evidence for the theory of evolution, since no new form
arose that had not existed before. Dark colored moths had existed in the moth
population before the Industrial Revolution. Only the relative proportions of
the existing moth varieties in the population changed. The moths had not acquired
a new trait or organ, which would cause "speciation."13 In order
for one moth species to turn into another living species, a bird for example,
new additions would have had to be made to its genes. That is, an entirely separate
genetic program would have had to be loaded so as to include information about
the physical traits of the bird.
This is the answer to be given
to the evolutionist story of Industrial Melanism. However, there is a more interesting
side to the story: Not just its interpretation, but the story itself is flawed.
As molecular biologist Jonathan Wells explains in his book Icons of Evolution,
the story of the peppered moths, which is included in every evolutionary biology
book and has therefore, become an "icon" in this sense, does not reflect the truth.
Wells discusses in his book how Bernard Kettlewell's experiment, which is known
as the "experimental proof" of the story, is actually a scientific scandal. Some
basic elements of this scandal are:
experiments conducted after Kettlewell's revealed that only one type of these
moths rested on tree trunks, and all other types preferred to rest beneath small,
horizontal branches. Since 1980 it has become clear that peppered moths do not
normally rest on tree trunks. In 25 years of fieldwork, many scientists such as
Cyril Clarke and Rory Howlett, Michael Majerus, Tony Liebert, and Paul Brakefield
concluded that in Kettlewell's experiment, moths were forced to act atypically,
therefore, the test results could not be accepted as scientific.14
Scientists who tested Kettlewell's conclusions came up with an even more interesting
result: Although the number of light moths would be expected to be larger in the
less polluted regions of England, the dark moths there numbered four times as
many as the light ones. This meant that there was no correlation between the moth
population and the tree trunks as claimed by Kettlewell and repeated by almost
all evolutionist sources.
- As the research
deepened, the scandal changed dimension: "The moths on tree trunks" photographed
by Kettlewell, were actually dead moths. Kettlewell used dead specimens glued
or pinned to tree trunks and then photographed them. In truth, there was little
chance of taking such a picture as the moths rested not on tree trunks but underneath
These facts were uncovered by
the scientific community only in the late 1990s. The collapse of the myth of Industrial
Melanism, which had been one of the most treasured subjects in "Introduction to
Evolution" courses in universities for decades, greatly disappointed evolutionists.
One of them, Jerry Coyne, remarked:
My own reaction resembles the dismay
attending my discovery, at the age of six, that it was my father and not
Santa who brought the presents on Christmas Eve.16
Thus, "the most famous example of natural selection" was relegated to
the trash-heap of history as a scientific scandal-which was inevitable,
because natural selection is not an "evolutionary mechanism," contrary
to what evolutionists claim.
short, natural selection is capable neither of adding a new organ to a living
organism, nor of removing one, nor of changing an organism of one species into
that of another. The "greatest" evidence put forward since Darwin has been able
to go no further than the "industrial melanism" of moths in England.
Why Natural Selection Can not Explain Complexity
As we showed at the beginning, the greatest problem for the
theory of evolution by natural selection, is that it cannot enable new
organs or traits to emerge in living things. Natural selection cannot
develop a species' genetic data; therefore, it cannot be used to account
for the emergence of new species. The greatest defender of the theory
of punctuated equilibrium, Stephen Jay Gould, refers to this impasse of
natural selection as follows;
The essence of Darwinism lies in a single
phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change.
No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating
the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.17
Another of the misleading methods that evolutionists employ on the issue
of natural selection is their effort to present this mechanism as an intelligent
designer. However,natural selection has no intelligence. It does
not possess a will that can decide what is good and what is bad for living
things. As a result, natural selection cannot explain biological systems
and organs that possess the feature of "irreducible complexity".
These systems and organs are composed of a great number of parts cooperating
together, and are of no use if even one of these parts is missing or defective.
(For example, the human eye does not function unless it exists with all
its components intact).
the will that brings all these parts together should be able to foresee the future
and aim directly at the advantage that is to be acquired at the final stage. Since
natural selection has no consciousness or will, it can do no such thing. This
fact, which demolishes the foundations of the theory of evolution, also worried
Darwin, who wrote: "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ
existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive,
slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."18
| A deformed foot, the product of mutation.
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements
taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nuclei of the cells of
a living organism and which contains all its genetic information. These breaks
or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical
action. Every mutation is an "accident," and either damages the nucleotides making
up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage
and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms
living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations
is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced
by people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and
freaks of nature…
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has
a very complex structure, and random effects can only damage it. Biologist B.
G. Ranganathan states:
First, genuine mutations are very
rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are
random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random
change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the
better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered
structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the
framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been so far observed. All mutations
have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments
on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation,
which had been formed to investigate mutations that might have been caused
by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement
that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are
a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution
to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in
failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce
mutations in fruit flies, as these insects reproduce very rapidly and
so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these
flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. The evolutionist
geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
Since the beginning of the twentieth
century, evolutionary biologists have sought examples of useful mutations by creating
mutant flies. But these efforts have always resulted in sick and deformed creatures.
The top picture shows the head of a normal fruit fly, and the picture on the right
shows the head of fruit fly with legs coming out of it, the result of mutation.
It is a striking, but not much
mentioned fact that, though geneticists have been breeding fruit-flies
for sixty years or more in labs all round the world- flies which produce
a new generation every eleven days-they have never yet seen the emergence
of a new species or even a new enzyme.21
Mutant frogs born with crippled legs.
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on
the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other
geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions
of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation.
All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious,
have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists'
monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In
practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.22
same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings
have had deleterious results. All mutations that take place in humans result in
physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome,
albinism, dwarfism or cancer. Needless to say, a process that leaves
people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed
to produce forms that are better fitted to survive.
A mutant fly with
The American pathologist David A. Demick
notes the following in a scientific article about mutations:
Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic
mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described
continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500
different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized
clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's
syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated
with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that
are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples
of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to
describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would
be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset
the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it
comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely
The only instance evolutionary biologists give of "useful
mutation" is the disease known as sickle cell anemia. In this, the hemoglobin
molecule, which serves to carry oxygen in the blood, is damaged as a result
of mutation, and undergoes a structural change. As a result of this, the
hemoglobin molecule's ability to carry oxygen is seriously impaired. People
with sickle cell anemia suffer increasing respiratory difficulties for
this reason. However, this example of mutation, which is discussed under
blood disorders in medical textbooks, is strangely evaluated by some evolutionary
biologists as a "useful mutation."
and functions of red corpuscles are compromised in sickle-cell anemia. For this
reason, their oxygen-carrying capacities are weakened.
They say that the partial immunity to malaria by those
with the illness is a "gift" of evolution. Using the same logic, one could say
that, since people born with genetic leg paralysis are unable to walk and so are
saved from being killed in traffic accidents, therefore genetic leg paralysis
is a "useful genetic feature." This logic is clearly totally unfounded.
is obvious that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé,
former president of the French Academy of Sciences, is quite clear on this point
in a comment he made about mutations. Grassé compared mutations to "making
mistakes in the letters when copying a written text." And as with mutations,
letter mistakes cannot give rise to any information, but merely damage such information
as already exists. Grassé explained this fact in this way:
in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are
they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify
what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder,
even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There
is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy.24
So for that reason, as Grassé puts it,
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind
The Pleiotropic Effect
The most important proof that mutations lead
only to damage, is the process of genetic coding. Almost all of the genes in a
fully developed living thing carry more than one piece of information. For instance,
one gene may control both the height and the eye color of that organism. Microbiologist
Michael Denton explains this characteristic of genes in higher organisms such
as human beings, in this way:
1. The wings do not develop.
2. The hind limbs reach
full length, but the digits do not fully develop.
3. There is no soft fur
4. Although there is a respiratory passage, lungs and air sacs are
5. The urinary tract does not grow, and does not induce the development
of the kidney.
the left we can see the normal development of a domesticated fowl, and on the
right the harmful effects of a mutation in the pleiotropic gene. Careful examination
shows that a mutation in just one gene damages many different organs. Even if
we hypothesize that mutation could have a beneficial effect, this "pleiotropic
effect" would remove the advantage by damaging many more organs.
The effects of genes on development
are often surprisingly diverse. In the house mouse, nearly every coat-colour
gene has some effect on body size. Out of seventeen x-ray induced eye
colour mutations in the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster, fourteen
affected the shape of the sex organs of the female, a characteristic that
one would have thought was quite unrelated to eye colour. Almost every
gene that has been studied in higher organisms has been found to effect
more than one organ system, a multiple effect which is known as pleiotropy.
As Mayr argues in Population, Species and Evolution: "It is doubtful
whether any genes that are not pleiotropic exist in higher organisms."26
of this characteristic of the genetic structure of living things, any coincidental
change because of a mutation, in any gene in the DNA, will affect more than one
organ. Consequently, this mutation will not be restricted to one part of the body,
but will reveal more of its destructive impact. Even if one of these impacts turns
out to be beneficial, as a result of a very rare coincidence, the unavoidable
effects of the other damage it causes will more than outweigh those benefits.
summarize, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot make evolution possible:
The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost
always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious
intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure,
but will rather impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up
the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried
off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ
or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back,
or an ear from the abdomen.
3- In order for a mutation to be
transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive
cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a cell or organ of the body
cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered
by the effects of radiation, or by other causes, will not be passed on to subsequent
The Escherichia coli bacterium is
no different from specimens a billion years old. Countless mutations over this
long period have not led to any structural changes.
All the explanations provided above indicate that natural
selection and mutation have no evolutionary effect at all. So far, no observable
example of "evolution" has been obtained by this method. Sometimes, evolutionary
biologists claim that "they cannot observe the evolutionary effect of natural
selection and mutation mechanisms since these mechanisms take place only over
an extended period of time." However, this argument, which is just a way of making
themselves feel better, is baseless, in the sense that it lacks any scientific
foundation. During his lifetime, a scientist can observe thousands of generations
of living things with short life spans such as fruit flies or bacteria, and still
observe no "evolution." Pierre-Paul Grassé states the following about the unchanging
nature of bacteria, a fact which invalidates evolution:
Bacteria ...are the organisms which,
because of their huge numbers, produce the most mutants. [B]acteria ...exhibit
a great fidelity to their species. The bacillus Escherichia coli, whose
mutants have been studied very carefully, is the best example. The reader
will agree that it is surprising, to say the least, to want to prove evolution
and to discover its mechanisms and then to choose as a material for this
study a being which practically stabilized a billion years ago! What
is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary]
change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary
fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to
the left, but no final evolutionary effect. Cockroaches, which are one
of the most venerable living insect groups, have remained more or less
unchanged since the Permian, yet they have undergone as many mutations
as Drosophila, a Tertiary insect. 27
it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism
in nature that can cause evolution. Furthermore, this conclusion agrees with the
evidence of the fossil record, which does not demonstrate the existence of a process
of evolution, but rather just the contrary.