Torch, Summer 1979

4 HANDICAPPED BY ITS OWN LIMITATIONS Donald P. Baumann Over the years the name of Charles Darwin has been so closely linked with the theory of evolution that many think Darwin "invented" evolution. The concept, however,was centuries old by Darwin's time. His importance lies in the fact that he was one of the first men to systematically collect data and to suggest a mechanism by which evolution could proceed. This mechanism supposedly responsible for the origin of the varied forms of life on earth he called natural selection. This is frequently referred to as "survival of the fittest," a phrase coined by Herbert Spencer, a contemporary of Darwin, to explain the meaning of natural selection. What we have today, however, is not "pure" Darwinism. With the rise of the field of genetics in this century, evolutionists realized that evolution by natural selection was not sufficient in itself to explain how we supposedly got here. A new factor, mutation, was then entered into the formula. Therefore, what we have today is called Neo-Darwinism. It teaches that mutations serve as the source of all new genetic material and that the most favorable mutations are passed on to future generations through natural selection. When closely examined, we can see that this refinement in Darwin's original theory still fails to make evolution an acceptable explanation for the origin of life. Let us first see how mutations affect plants and animals and then consider what happens when we bring the two elements of Neo-Darwinism, mutations and natural selection, together. Most mutations are chemical changes in DNA, the substance of genetic material in which is coded the information determining the physical characteristics of all life forms. Mutations appear to be random and spontaneous, although certain chemical and physical agents are known to cause them. Many mutations are lethal or harmful to some degree. In fact, of the thousands of mutations studied this century, none have been demonstrated to be beneficial. Some noted evolutionists admit that it is generous to assume that even one– tenth of one percent of mutations are beneficial. This raises a serious problem: if evolution requires beneficial mutations to provide new genetic material, but if no beneficial mutations ever occur, how can mutations be a positive factor in the evolution of a species? Mutations are the only known source of new genetic material for evolution, so the evolutionist has no other choice but to depend on mutations if he is to maintain his faith in the evolutionary process. Even evolutionists realize that mutations, in themselves, cannot produce evolutionary development. One noted evolutionist calculated the probability of a horse evolving from a single cell as one chance in the number one followed by 1500 pages of zeros. Therefore, the second aspect of Neo-Darwinism, natural selection, must drastically increase evolution's chances if the theory is to stand.