Author: Paul S. Taylor of Films for Christ
This reference section is designed to be used in conjunction with the main text, or as a concise listing of additional quotes and resources related to this topic.
Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976), pp. 85-86, 96-98.
Book of Genesis 2:19.
The original BEARS. Descendants: Possibly all living and extinct members of the Family: Ursidae, including black bears, grizzly bears (and giant cave bear practically the same, except in size), and brown bears.
The original BEAVERS. Descendants: Probably all living and extinct members of the Family: Castoridae, including the North American and European beavers and the fossil giant beaver.
The original CAMELS. Descendants: Possibly all living and extinct members of the Family: Camelidae.
The original CATS. Descendants: Probably all 30+ breeds of living domestic cats (species: Felis catus); probably all extinct domestic cats; Possibly the wildcats (living species: Felis sylvestris); Possibly the pumas (living species: Felis concolor); Possibly the lynxes (genus: Lynx). The great cats would be a separate baramin or else early offshoots of this baramin (genus: Panthera, includes lions, tigers, and leopards).
The original CATTLE. Descendants: Possibly all living and extinct members of the genus Bos, including all varieties of dairy and beef cattle, the oxen (species: Bos taurus), the Brahman (species: Bos indicus), the yak (species: Bos mutus), the gaur, the gayal, the banteng and the kouprey; possibly all of the bison (species: Bison bison American, and Bison bonasus European).
The original CERATOPIAN DINOSAURS. Descendants: Possibly all members of the Family: Ceratopids, including Triceratops. Since these animals are extinct and only known from fossils, relatively little is known about them. It is certainly possible that they involve more than one baramin.
The original CHICKENS (DOMESTIC FOWL). Descendants: Possibly all living and extinct members of the Family: Phasianidae, including the domestic hen and the Indian Jungle Fowl); Also, possibly all living and extinct members of the Family: Meleagrididae, including the turkeys; Also, possibly the members of the Family: Numididae, the guinea fowl.
The original COCKROACHES. Descendants: Possibly all living and extinct members of the Family: Blattidae (supposedly includes 4 thousand or more species today).
The original DOGS. Descendants: Probably all living and extinct members of the genus Canis, including all 200+ breeds of living and extinct domestic dogs (species: Canis familiaris), the dingos (species: Canis dingo or Canis familiaris dingo), the wolves (species: Canis lupus), the coyotes (species: Canis latrans), and possibly the jackals and foxes; Possibly all of the Family: Canidae. The hyenas and aardwolves would be either a separate baramin or an early offshoot of this baramin.
The original ELEPHANTS. Descendants: Possibly all living and extinct members of the Family: Elephantidae, including the African elephant (species: Loxodonta africana), the Indian elephant (species: Elephas indicus), the mammoths and the mastodons.
The original FLAMINGOS. Descendants: Probably all living and extinct members of the Family: Phoenicopteridae.
The original HORSES. Descendants: Probably all living and extinct members of the genus Equus, including the many modern horse breeds (species: Equus caballus), the zebras (species: Equus zebra), and the mules. The donkeys and asses (species: Equus asinus) might be part of this baramin or in a separate baramin of their own.
The original PIGS. Descendants: Possibly all living and extinct members of the Family: Suidae, including the many modern breeds of pigs, the wild boars (species: Sus scrofa), and possibly the warthogs (species: Phacochoerus aethiopicus).
The original SHEEP. Descendants: Possibly all living and extinct members of the genus Ovis, including the 400+ modern breeds of domestic sheep, the bighorn sheep, and the mouflon (species: Ovis musimon). The goats (genus: Capra) might possibly be an early offshoot of this baramin, since there is some cross fertilization possible. Otherwise the goats are in their own baramin(s).
Plural = baramins. The term baramin was first coined by Frank L. Marsh, Life, Man, and Time (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1957), p. 118, and Frank L. Marsh Variation and Fixity in Nature (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1976), pp. 36-37.
Creationists Lane Lester (Ph.D. in genetics) and Raymond Bohlin:
We would predict that speciation events would not affect the basic design of the organism. This would simply be a splitting up of the gene pool of one species to create two. With the constraining factors of the regulatory mechanisms still operating and the inability of mutations of any type to produce new genetic information, the maintenance of the basic plan is to be expected. (p. 168)
There are limits to biological change and these limits are set by the structure and function of the genetic machinery. (p. 153)
[Lane P. Lester and Raymond G. Bohlin, The Natural Limits of Biological Change (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan/Probe, 1984), 207 pp. (emphasis added).]
Book of Genesis, chapter 1.
Henry M. Morris, The Genesis Record (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1976), pp. 62-64.
Stanley L. Jaki, Angels, Apes and Men (LaSalle, Illinois: S. Sugden, 1983).
Full title of Darwin's book: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life.
Patricia G. Horan in Foreword of Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, (New York: Avenel Books, 1979), p. v.
Many have noted that Darwin's belief system sounds curiously religious in concept.
Darwin admitted that one difficulty with his theory could be seen throughout the animal kingdom. This problem remains till this day. Charles Darwin:
Firstly, why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradations, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms? Why is not all nature in confusion instead of the species being, as we see them, well defined?
[Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, first edition reprint (New York: Avenel Books, 1979), p. 205 (in 2nd paragraph of Chapter 6 on Difficulties on Theory).]
Some Creationists call these changes within a baramin microevolution, a term evidently coined by Evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky.
[Theodosius Dobzhansky, Further Data on the Variation of the Y Chromosome in Drosophila pseudoobscura, Gen., Vol. 22 (1937), pp. 340-346.]
Microevolution (small changes or variations) involves small-scale biological changes only (e.g., color, size). Microevolution does not produce new genetic information; it only reshuffles existing genes. The gene pool remains constant.
Macroevolution has never been observed, but Evolutionists suppose it is possible and commonplace. Macroevolution would involve the production of new genetic information enabling large-scale biological changes (e.g., amphibian to reptile).
Creationists have no problem with the idea of microevolution. They believe God designed the genetic code with this ability to produce interesting variety within each baramin. Also, they believe this allows various baramins to survive despite changing environments (which have occurred since man's fall into sin and the worldwide Flood of Noah's day).
The author prefers to avoid use of the term microevolution since some laypeople confuse it with true Evolution (macroevolution).
Dr. P. Johnson, concerning punctuated equilibrium:
Stasis [in the history of life in the fossil record] could not come to public attention until it was dressed up as evidence for `punctuated equilibrium,' which sounded at first like a new theory but turned out to be a minor variant of Darwinism.
[Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 152 (emphasis added).]
All he [Darwin] found on his Galapagos expedition was differences in beak and feather, although the birds are supposed to have been isolated for thousands of years'That most skilful breeder, Sir John Sebright, used to say, with respect to pigeons, that he would produce any given feather in three years, but it would take him six years to obtain head and beak.' So this is all old stuff. (Dr. Macbeth is an Evolutionist who received his doctorate from Harvard Law School. He has made the study of Darwinian theory his avocation.)
[Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit, 1971 / Third Printing, 1978), p. 154.]
The Galapagos Islands A World All Its Own, Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bible-Science Association, February 1984), pp. 7-10.
Walter E. Lammerts, Effect of Drought on the Finches of a Galapagos Island, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (June 1982), pp. 70-71, and The Galapagos Island Finches, in Walter E. Lammerts, editor, Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1970), pp. 354-366.
G.H. Harper, Speciation or Irruption: The Significance of the Darwin Finches, Journal of Biological Education, Vol. 14, No. 2 (1980), pp. 99-106 (provides data to show that the 13 finch species on the Galapagos did not evolve there, but rather, all flew there / provides scientific reasons to believe the 13 species did not originate from a single species).
Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing, 1976).
The speculations of The Origins of Species turned out to be wrong the scientific facts throw Darwin out.
[Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (London: J.M. Dent & Sons, 1981), pp. 96-97.]
Concerning Darwinism and neo-Darwinism:
We ourselves would be less concerned about falsifiability if neo-Darwinism were a powerful theory with major successes to its credit. But this is simply not the case.
Neo-Darwinist textbooks on evolution keep citing the same comparatively few examples: industrial melanism, sickle cell anemia, DDT resistance. All are comparatively minor evolutionary changes The real question, however, and this is what the claim to sufficiency is all about, is whether all of evolution can be explained as an extrapolation from these examples, i.e., as arising from the natural selection of many random variations. Is evolution nothing more than industrial melanism writ large? On this the crucial issue there is no evidence in favor of the synthetic theory. From the claims that are made for neo-Darwinism one could easily get the impression that it has made great progress towards explaining evolution, mostly leaving the details to be cleared up. In fact, quite the reverse is true. Neo-Darwinism can account for some of the details, but the major problems remain unsolved. Samuel Butler's (1911) complaint that Darwin had given us `an Origin of the Species with the Origin cut out' is true today as when he wrote it. (P. Saunders, mathematician, Queen Elizabeth College of the University of London, and M. Ho. biologist, Open University)
[Peter T. Saunders and Mae-Wan Ho, Is Neo-Darwinism Falsifiable? And Does It Matter?, Nature and System, Vol. 4, No. 4 (Tucson, Arizona 85722-3368: Nature and System, December 1982), pp. 179-196 (quote is from p. 191 emphasis added).]
Darwin initially rejected Lamarck's hypothesis of acquired traits in favor of natural selection. But, further research and debate caused him to return to Lamarck's theory (unpopular as it was). In the sixth edition of his book The Origin of Species, Charles Darwin abandoned natural selection as the force behind Evolution due to the continuing lack of evidence and theoretical problems.
[Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species, 6th edition (New York: The Modern Library, 1872) (p. 66 Darwin: natural selection is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures).]
Randall Hedtke, The Divine Essence in Evolutionary Theorizing—An Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Evolutionary Natural Selection, Mutation, and Punctuated Equilibria as Mechanisms of Megaevolution, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1 (June 1984), pp. 40-46, and The Secret of the Sixth Edition (New York: Vantage Press, 1983), pp. 1-48.
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong (New Haven, Connecticut: Ticknor and Fields, 1982), 258 pp.
Botanist and geneticist Gregor J. Mendel's scientific theory of genes was first submitted in 1865, just 6 years after the first publication of Darwin's Origin of Species. The results of Mendel's important research were neglected until 1900, when they were made public by DeVries (Holland), Correns (Germany), and Tschermak (Austria).
Biologist Frank Marsh, Ph.D., Emeritus Professor of Biology of Andrews University:
Microevolution, yes. Macroevolution, no! This is a natural fact (i.e., it can be demonstrated) of tremendous importance, one which merits deep and thoughtful study.
[Frank L. Marsh, Genetic Variation, Limitless or Limited?, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 4 (1983), pp. 204-206 (quote from p. 206 emphasis added) (A biological principle of limited variation pervades: genetic variability in organisms can go no farther than to produce new variants within already existing basic types. No exception has been demonstrated.)]
People are misled into believing that since microevolution is a reality, that therefore macroevolution is such a reality also. Evolutionists maintain that over long periods of time small-scale changes accumulate in such a way as to generate new and more complex organisms This is sheer illusion, for there is no scientific evidence whatever to support the occurrence of biological change on such a grand scale. In spite of all the artificial breeding which has been done, and all the controlled efforts to modify fruit flies, the bacillus escherichia (E-coli), and other organisms, fruit flies remain fruit flies, E-coli bacteria remain E-coli bacteria, roses remain roses, corn remains corn, and human beings remain human beings. (Creationist researcher Darrel Kautz)
[Darrel Kautz, The Origin of Living Things (10025 W. Nash St., Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53222: Darrel Kautz, 1988), p. 6 (emphasis added).]
A meeting of the world's leading Evolutionists discussed whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. The answer was a clear No.).
[Roger Lewin, Evolutionary Theory Under Fire, Science, Vol. 210, No. 4472 (November 21, 1980), pp. 883 (emphasis added).]
Geneticist Dr. Maciej Giertych:
Genetics has no proofs for evolution. It has trouble explaining it. The closer one looks at the evidence for evolution the less one finds of substance. In fact the theory keeps on postulating evidence, and failing to find it, moves on to other postulates (fossil missing links, natural selection of improved forms, positive mutations, molecular phylogenetic sequences, etc.). This is not science. (Professor Maciej Giertych, B.A., M.A. from Oxon, Ph.D. from Toronto, D.Sc. from Poznan. Head of Genetics Department, Polish Academy of Science, Institute of Dendrology, Poland)
[G.J. Keane, Creation Rediscovered (Melbourne, Australia: 1991), Quote is from the Foreword. As cited in Creation: Ex Nihilo, Vol. 13, No. 3 (June-August 1991), p. 17.]
The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication:
Generation after generation, through countless cell divisions, the genetic heritage of living things is scrupulously preserved in DNA. All of life depends on the accurate transmission of information. As genetic messages are passed along through generations of dividing cells, even small mistakes can be life-threatening. If mistakes were as rare as one in a million, 3,000 mistakes would be made during each duplication of the human genome. Since the genome replicates about a million billion times in the course of building a human being from a single fertilized egg, it is unlikely that the human organism could tolerate such a high rate of error. In fact, the actual rate of mistakes is more like one in 10 billion.
[Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication, Scientific American, Vol. 259, No. 2 (August 1988), pp. 40-46 (quote is from p. 24).]
Ernst Mayr, Populations, Species and Evolution (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1970) [p. 98—Evolutionist Mayr says mutations are the ultimate source of genetic novelties. (emphasis added)].
Dr. Colin Patterson, British Museum of Natural History:
The main reason for inventing these macromutations is that there are some features of plants and animals which can hardly be imagined as arising by gradual steps; the adaptive value of the perfected structure is easily seen, but intermediate steps seem to be useless, or even harmful. For example, what use is a lens in the eye unless it works? A distorting lens might be worse than no lens at all How can the segments of an animal like the earthworm or centipede arise bit by bit? An animal is either segmented or it is not. The usual answer to such questions is that they are due only to the failure of the imagination.
[Colin Patterson, Evolution (London: British Museum of Natural History, 1978), p. 142 (emphasis added).]
Evolutionary paleontologist Stephen J. Gould:
But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if Evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can't fly with 2% of a wing or gain much protection from an iota's similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated forms? one point stands high above the rest: the dilemma of incipient stages. Mivart identified this problem as primary and it remains so today. [Stephen Jay Gould, Not Necessarily a Wing, Natural History, Vol. 94, No. 10 (October 1985), pp. 12-13.]
Scientists M. Radman, Ph.D from the Free University of Brussels and a research director at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, and R. Wagner, Ph.D. from Harvard University:
In human beings the substitute of a single 'letter' in the genetic message is responsible for such lethal hereditary diseases as sickle-cell anemia and thalassemia. Several common cancers are also associated with a single-letter change. (p. 40)[Miroslav Radman and Robert Wagner, The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication, Scientific American, Vol. 259, No. 2 (August 1988), pp. 40-46 (emphasis added).]
If the genetic blueprint for an organism is initially optimal like, say, the design for a new TV set then mutations appear as damage incurred by wear and tear or misuse. Kicking a damaged TV set might improve its performance but the treatment is not generally recommended. In no way could random or even well-directed kicking have been responsible for the origin of the TV set in the first place. But the neo-Darwinian, who asserts that mutations are the raw material of evolution, and the only source of novelty for natural selection to work on, is both denying the existence of an optimal genetic blueprint (or archetype) for a life-form, and accepting 'kicking' as a rational means of improving it out of recognition. (M. Pitman, Cambridge University)
[Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider, 1984), pp. 66-67 (emphasis added).]
Viewing mutations as degradations is in line with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter goes from order to disorder. (Creationist R. Hedtke)
[Randall Hedtke, The Divine Essence in Evolutionary Theorizing An Analysis of the Rise and Fall of Evolutionary Natural Selection, Mutation, and Punctuated Equilibria as Mechanisms of Megaevolution, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1 (June 1984), p. 44.]
For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning human body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is certain to impair just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture. (Radiation and mutation specialist James Crow)
[James F. Crow, Genetic Effects of Radiation, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14 (1958), pp. 19-20.]
It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing, just as changes accidentally introduced into any artificial mechanism are predominantly harmful to its useful operation good ones are so rare that we can consider them all bad. (Radiation and mutation expert H. Muller)
[H.J. Muller, How Radiation Changes the Genetic Constitution, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 11, No. 9 (November 1955), p. 331 (emphasis added).]
There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher viability than the mother species. (p. 1212)
A review of known facts about their ability to survive has led to no other conclusion than that they are always constitutionally weaker than their parent form or species, and in a population with free competition they are eliminated Therefore they are never found in nature (e.g., not a single one of the several hundreds of Drosophila mutations), and therefore, they are able to appear only in the favorable environment of the experimental field or laboratory (famed Swedish Evolutionist Heribert Nilsson of Lund University, p. 1186)
[N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup, 1953), p. 1212.]
All mutations seem to be in the nature of injuries that, to some extent, impair the fertility and viability of the affected organisms. I doubt if among the many thousands of known mutant types one can be found which is superior to the wild type in its normal environment; only very few can be named which are superior to the wild type in a strange environment the mass of evidence shows that all, or almost all, known mutations are unmistakably pathological and the few remaining ones are highly suspect. (Expert C. Martin of McGill University)
[C.P. Martin, A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution, American Scientist, Vol. 41, No. 1 (January 1953), pp. 100, 103 (emphasis added).]
John W. Klotz, The Philosophy of Science in Relation to Concepts of Creation Vs. the Evolution Theory, in Walter E. Lammerts, editor, Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1970), pp. 17-18.
Duane T. Gish, Critique of Biochemical Evolution, in Walter E. Lammerts, Why Not Creation? (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1970), pp. 288-289.
Gary E. Parker, Darwin and the Nature of Biologic Change, in Henry M. Morris and Gary E. Parker, What Is Creation Science?, Revised and Expanded edition (Santee, California: CLP Publishers, 1987), pp. 100-108.
Randy L. Wysong, The Creation-Evolution Controversy (Midland, Michigan: Inquiry Press, 1976), pp. 266-278.
Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 42.
Professor Phillip Johnson: University of California at Berkeley, graduate of Harvard University and the University of Chicago, former law clerk for U.S. Chief Justice Earl Warren.
Charles Darwin later became uncertain about natural selection as a cause of Evolution, eventually bowing to the weight of scientific evidence and abandoning it in the 6th edition of his book, The Origin of Species. See: Randall Hedtke, The Secret of the Sixth Edition (New York: Vantage Press, 1983).
Concerning the importance of natural selection to Darwinism, Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould states:
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.
[Stephen Gould, The Return of Hopeful Monsters, Natural History, Vol. 86 (June/July 1977), p. 28.]
Norman Macbeth on Darwin's stress on the analogy between natural selection and the work of the plant and animal breeders:
This stimulated Darwin's thinking, but clouded his judgment as to the serious dissimilarities. Several eminent evolutionists have followed Darwin in this error, creating great confusion in biology.
[Norman Macbeth, Danger: Analogies Ahead, Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), Vol. 79, No. 2 (1986), pp. 191-202 (quote is from his abstract).]
'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides [in the DNA]. Nature or species do not have the capacity or rearranging them nor to add to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories.
[I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities (P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 209 (emphasis added).]
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it (Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson)
[Colin Patterson, interview on the subject of Cladistics, British Broadcasting Corporation television (March 4, 1982).]
But natural selection per se does not work to create new species. (Well-known Evolutionist Niles Eldredge, a curator of the American Museum of Natural History in New York City)
[Niles Eldredge, An Extravagance of Species (The Diversity of Fossil Trilobites Poses a Challenge to Traditional Evolutionary Theory), Natural History, Vol. 89, No. 7 (July 1980), p. 46 (emphasis added).]
The role assigned to natural selection in establishing adaptation, while speciously probable, is based on not one single sure datum. (Distinguished Evolutionist P. Grass)
[Pierre Paul Grass, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), p. 170.]
Michael Pitman, Cambridge University:
Natural selection can only reduce rather than increase genetic variability It is indeed a force counteracting the tendency for mutation to cause a degeneration in the quality of living organisms but it cannot be creative.
[Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider, 1984), p. 76.]
Evolutionist S. Lovtrup:
Micromutations do occur, but the theory that these alone can account for evolutionary change is either falsified, or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical theory. I suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology: I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens many people will pose the question: How did this ever happen?
[S. Lovtrup, Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth (London: Croom Helm, 1987), p. 422 (emphasis added).
As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding.
[Jeffrey S. Wicken, The Generation of Complexity in Evolution, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 77, No. 3 (April 7, 1979), p. 349.]
Evolutionist Dr. Pierre-Paul Grass, former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences and the scientist who held the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for twenty years, confirms:
No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution. (p. 88 emphasis added)
The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur. There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it. (p. 103 emphasis added)
[Pierre-Paul Grass, Evolution of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), pp. 88, 103.]
To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability.
[I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities (P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984), p. 81.]
Paleontologist and Evolutionist Dr. Stephen Jay Gould:
A mutation doesn't produce major new raw material. You don't make a new species by mutating the species.
[Stephen Gould, Is a New and General Theory of Evolution Emerging?, lecture at Hobart and William Smith College (February 4, 1980) (emphasis added).]
The central question of the Chicago Conference was whether the mechanisms of microevolution (mutations and natural selection) could be extrapolated to explain the phenomenon of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear 'NO'!
[Roger Lewin, Evolutionary Theory Under Fire, Science, Vol. 210, No. 4472 (November 21, 1980), pp. 883-887.]
In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutations plus natural selection quite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology.
[Arthur Koestler, Janus: A Summing Up (New York: Vintage Books, 1978), p. 185 (emphasis added).]
Evolutionist Richard Goldschmidt, Ph.D., M.D., D.Sc., outstanding geneticist and Professor of Zoology at the University of California, frequently pointed out that no one has ever succeeded in producing even one new species by the accumulation of micromutations.
[Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution (New Haven, Connecticut: Yale University Press, 1940) (p. 8 the facts of microevolution do not suffice for an understanding of macroevolution.), and Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist, American Scientist, Vol. 40 (January 1952).]
If one allows the unquestionably largest experimenter to speak, namely nature, one gets a clear and incontrovertible answer to the question about the significance of mutations for the formation of species and Evolution. They disappear under the competitive conditions of natural selection, as soap bubbles burst in a breeze. (Swedish Evolutionist Heribert Nilsson)
[N. Heribert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung (Lund, Sweden: Verlag CWK Gleerup Press, 1953), p. 174.]
Professor Phillip Johnson, University of California, Berkeley:
Whenever natural selection is actually observed in operation, it permits variation only within boundaries and operates as effectively to preserve the constraining boundaries as it does to permit the limited variation. The hypothesis that natural selection has the degree of creative power required by Darwinist theory remains unsupported by empirical evidence.
[Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1991), p. 96 (emphasis added).]
Dr. Richard Lewontin, Professor of Zoology, University of Chicago, Co-editor of American Naturalist:
In other words, natural selection over the long run does not seem to improve a species' chance of survival but simply enables it to 'track', or keep up with, the constantly changing environment.
[Richard C. Lewontin, Adaptation, Scientific American, Vol. 239, No. 3 (September 1978), pp. 212-230 (quote from p. 215) (emphasis added).]
Arthur E. Wilder-Smith in Willem J.J. Glashouwer and Paul S. Taylor, writers, The Origin of Species (Mesa, Arizona: Films for Christ, 1983) (Creationist motion picture).
Also, see: Arthur E. Wilder-Smith, The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution (Santee, California: Master Books, 1981), pp. 123-146.
Charles R. Darwin, The Origin of Species, first edition reprint (New York: Avenel Books, 1979), p. 217 (Chapter 6, Difficulties on Theory, First edition: 1859).]
Charles Darwin in a letter to Asa Gray (April 3, 1860), as cited in Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried: An Appeal to Reason (Boston: Gambit, 1971), p. 101.
That a mindless, purposeless, chance process such as natural selection, acting on the sequelae of recombinant DNA or random mutations, most of which are injurious or fatal, could fabricate such complexity and organization as in the vertebrate eye, where each component part must carry out its own distinctive task in an harmoniously functioning optical unit, is inconceivable. The absence of transitional forms between the invertebrate retina and that of the vertebrates poses another difficulty. Here there is a great gulf fixed which remains inviolate with no seeming likelihood of ever being bridged. The total picture speaks of intelligent creative design of an infinitely high order.
[H.S. Hamilton (M.D.), The Retina of the Eye An Evolutionary Road Block, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 22, No. 2 (September 1985), pp. 59-64.]
The curious thing, however, is that in their distribution the eyes of the invertebrates form no series of continuity and succession. Without obvious phylogenic sequence, their occurrence seems haphazard; analogous photoreceptors appear in unrelated species, an elaborate organ in a primitive species, or an elementary structure high in the Evolutionary scale, and the same animal may be provided with two different mechanisms with different spectral sensitivities subserving different types of behavior.
[Sir Stewart Duke-Elder, The Eye in Evolution (St. Louis: C.V. Mosby, 1973), p. 178.]
FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH DISCUSSION OF PROBLEMS THE EYE POSES FOR EVOLUTIONISM
Joseph L. Calkins, Design in the Human Eye, Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. 24, No. 3 (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bible-Science Association, March 1986), pp. 1-2, 5.
Darwin on the Evolution of the Eye: The Full Context, Origins Research, Vol. 8, No. 2 (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Students for Origins Research, 1985), pp. 12-13.
I.L. Cohen, The Eyes, in Darwin Was Wrong A Study in Probabilities (P.O. Box 231, Greenvale, New York 11548: New Research Publications, Inc., 1984), pp. 112-130.
Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution (London: Rider & Company, 1984), pp. 215-218.
Evolutionist R. Dawkins:
Species-level selection can't explain the evolution of adaptations: eyes, ears, knee joints, spider webs, behavior patterns, everything, in short, that many of us want a theory of evolution to explain. Species selection may happen, but it doesn't seem to do anything much.
[Richard Dawkins, What Was All the Fuss About?, Nature, Vol. 316 (August 22, 1985), pp. 683-684 (emphasis added).]
Darwin finally did deal honestly and objectively with the data; he abandoned Evolutionary natural selection. Then, in order to avoid conceding to special Creation and continue to meet the scientific requirement of postulating an ongoing mechanism, he switched to Jean Lamarck's theory of acquired characters, which never had credibility.
[Randall Hedtke, The Divine Essence in Evolutionary Theorizing, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 1 (June 1984), p. 40 (emphasis added).]
Darwinism has failed in practice. The whole aim and purpose of Darwinism is to show how modern forms descended from ancient forms, that is, to construct reliable phylogenies (genealogies or family trees). In this it has utterly failed. (Retired attorney and Evolutionism researcher Norman Macbeth, author of Darwin Retried / J.D. degree from Harvard Law School, B.A. from Stanford University)
[Norman MacBeth, A Third Position in the Textbook Controversy, American Biology Teacher, Vol. 38, No. 8 (November 1976), pp. 495-496 (quote is from p. 495 emphasis added).]
Lane Lester and Ray Bohlin, The Natural Limits of Biological Change (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan/Probe, 1984), 207 pp. (careful and refreshing evaluation of Darwinism, neo-Darwinism, and punctuated equilibrium shows there are limits to biological change).
Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler & Adler, 1986, and London: Burnett Books, 1985).
A.J. Jones, The Genetic Integrity of the 'Kinds' (Baramins): A Working Hypothesis, Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (June 1982), pp. 13-18.
Lawrence R. Davie, A Re-examination of the Role of Mutations and Natural Selection in the Evolution Model of Origins, Origins Research, Vol. 3, No. 1 (Colorado Springs, Colorado: Students for Origins Research, 1980), pp. 6-8 (discusses failure of both gene mutations and chromosomal aberrations to account for Evolution).
Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature (Omaha, Nebraska: Pacific Press, 1976).
In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge or even a new enzyme.
[Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery (New York: Harper and Row, 1983), pp. 34, 38 (emphasis added).]
No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has gotten near it (C. Patterson, Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department of the British Museum of Natural History)
[Colin Patterson, Cladistics, Interview by British Broadcasting Corporation (March 4, 1982) (emphasis added).]
Evolution by natural selection would be established today beyond any reasonable doubt, even without empirical evidence of intermediates, if it had been shown that all the great divisions of nature could at least theoretically have been crossed by inventing a really convincing series of hypothetical and fully functional transitional forms. However, as we shall see this has never been achieved. (non-Creationist Denton, Ph.D.)
[Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (Bethesda, Maryland: Adler and Adler Publishers, 1986), pp. 200-201 (emphasis added).]
Evolutionist Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London:
It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way of putting them to the test.
[Luther D. Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems, 4th Edition (Santee, California: Master Books, 1988), p. 89 (emphasis added).]
Nancy Pearcey, “World View: What Species of Species? or, Darwin and the Origin of What?,” Bible-Science Newsletter, Vol. 27, No. 6 (Minneapolis, Minnesota: Bible-Science Association, June 1989), pp. 7-9 (layman-level article).
Walter E. Lammerts, “Does Chromosomal Reorganization Really Lead to the Origin of New Species?,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 1 (June 1982), pp. 10-13.
Frank L. Marsh, Variation and Fixity in Nature: The Meaning of Diversity and Discontinuity in the World of Living Things, and Their Bearing on Creation and Evolution (Mountain View, California: Pacific Press Publishing Association, 1976).
Arthur LaGrange Battson III, The Paradox of Natural Selection, Origins Research, Vol. 9, No. 2 (1986), pp. 1, 3, 6.
Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Darwin, Evolution and the New Biology (1982), 258 pp. (written by a non-Creationist / shows the demise of Darwinism / treats the fossil evidence, the insufficiency of mutation and chance, punctuated equilibrium, cladism, etc. / well-documented).
Tom Bethell, “Agnostic Evolutionists: The Taxonomic Case,” Harpers (February 1985), pp. 49-61 (an article that had Evolutionists up in arms / includes interviews with Colin Patterson, Gareth Nelson, Norman Platnick, and Richard Lewontin).
Copyright © 1995, Films for Christ, All rights reserved.