Neo-Darwinism and Mutations

In order to find a solution, Darwinists advanced the "Modern Synthetic Theory," or as it is more commonly known, Neo-Darwinism, at the end of the 1930s. Neo-Darwinism added mutations, which are distortions formed in the genes of living beings due to such external factors as radiation or replication errors, as the "cause of favorable variations" in addition to natural selection.

Today, the model that Darwinists espouse, despite their own awareness of its scientific invalidity, is Neo-Darwinism. The theory maintains that millions of living species were formed through a process whereby numerous complex organs of these organisms (e.g., ears, eyes, lungs, and wings) underwent "mutations", that is, genetic disorders. Yet, there is an outright scientific fact that totally undermines this theory: Mutations do not cause living beings to develop; on the contrary, they are always harmful. The horrific images that appeared after the nuclear explosions in Chernobyl, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are the exact results brought about by mutations. The organisms with proper structures either died or were severely damaged by mutations.

The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure, and random effects can only harm it. The American geneticist B. G. Ranganathan explains this as follows:

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 improvement. (B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1988, p. 7.)

According to the claims of Darwinists, mutations must produce proportionate and coherent changes all over the body. For example, as per the claims of Darwinists, if an ear is formed on the right side as a result of chance mutations just as they claim, chance mutations should also form a second ear on the left side that shares the same symmetry and properties, and hears just as well. The hammer, anvil and stirrup must each come into existence in the same perfect and equal state. Random mutations must form heart valves on both sides in the same way; the valves and auricles produced by random mutations must be formed simultaneously and equally compatible with one another; they must be flawless, in their proper places. Huge discrepancies would appear if this symmetry and order could not be maintained in every organ of the body. Bizarre structures with its one ear upside down, one unusual tooth, one eye on the forehead while the other on the nose, would appear. But living organisms do not possess such imbalances. According to the claims of the Darwinists, everything formed by mutations must be symmetrical and compatible. However, all mutations are harmful. In the past, it was assumed that 99% of the mutations were harmful while the remaining 1% was neutral. Yet new researches revealed that those 1% of mutations that take place in those regions of the DNA that do not code proteins and were thus assumed to be harmless, are in fact harmful in the long run. That is why scientists named these mutations as 'silent mutations'. It is impossible for mutations that are absolutely harmful to form rational, compatible, symmetrical organs at the same time.

Mutations can be likened to shooting at an intact structure with a machine gun. Shooting at an intact object will completely ruin its structure. One of the bullets proving ineffective, or curing a pre-existing infection in the body by cauterizing it, does not change the result. The organism would already be ruined by the remaining 99 bullets that hit it.

Lynn Margulis, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, has made the following confession regarding the evident harmful effects of mutations:

New mutations don't create new species; they create offspring that are impaired. (Lynn Margulis, quoted in Darry Madden, UMass Scientist to Lead Debate on Evolutionary Theory, Brattleboro (Vt.) Reformer, February 3, 2006)

Also in an interview in 2011, Margulis emphasized the fact that "there is no evidence" indicating that mutations modify organisms and thus give rise to new species:

[N]eo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change-led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence. (Lynn Margulis quoted in "Lynn Margulis: Q + A," Discover Magazine, April 2011, p. 68)

As Margulis stated, there is not a single evidence showing that random mutations lead to evolutionary changes, which in turn lead to the emergence of new species.

Indeed, no beneficial mutation – one that would advance the genetic code – has ever been observed. All mutations have proved to be harmful. It is now understood that mutation, which is presented as an "evolutionary mechanism", is actually a genetic occurrence that harms living things, and leaves them disabled. (The most common effect of mutation on human beings is cancer.) Of course, a destructive mechanism cannot be an "evolutionary mechanism". Natural selection, on the other hand, "can do nothing by itself", as Darwin also accepted. This fact shows us that there is no "evolutionary mechanism" in nature. Since there is no evolutionary mechanism, no such imaginary process called "evolution" can take place.