Sickle Cell Anemia is an inherited blood disorder caused by a “genetic mutation” that produces abnormal hemoglobin, turning red blood cells rigid and crescent-shaped. This is a standard definition of a well-known disease. However, calling it “beneficial mutation” is an actual epidemic of epic proportions.
One type of mutation does occur frequently throughout practically all life forms. However it destroys life.
It is the fatal destruction of the template by cell mutation as in carcinomas and other diseases. This is often misquoted and a distortion of turning sickle cell anemia into a ‘beneficial’ mutation.
The favorite scam is calling sickle cell anemia a beneficial mutation. This is a disease with severe symptoms that would mean death by starvation in a hunter gatherer world!
Within the sufferer’s DNA, mutations occur transforming healthy cells into deadly sickle cells. This causes blood-clotting, pain and weakness.
Carriers do not have the disease but can pass it on. This in itself jeopardizes their line’s survival in evolutionary terms. It still exists because carriers are not themselves affected. They survive but pass it on the offspring
At this stage the reports become bizarre. The claim is that there is a powerful and wonderful ‘beneficial’ effect.
This is that sufferers and carriers are not susceptible to malaria. The guy is dying of sickle cell anemia or will pass it on to his children and you are congratulating him for this beneficial mutation. Where if he were to be bitten by an infected mosquito, he would still die of sickle cell anemia not malaria! Mazel Tov!
Wow. So, a mutation that makes you dysfunctional and threatens your offspring has a side effect which means you won’t be killed by malaria if you live long enough.
Sickle Cell Anemia and Mutation: Are the disease carriers fittest?
And do we find huge populations of people with this mutation surviving in malaria ridden areas? Are they the fittest – surviving and grinning as they watch the funerals around them?
No way. They are all long dead and do not reproduce. And you call that a beneficial mutation?
Yes, I know, if we could capture that “beneficial” mutation and harness it we could immunize the world. But that is irrelevant to our discussion.
Non-Beneficial Non-Mutations
Now you are forearmed, look at the following list of ‘beneficial mutations’ quoted as proof of mutation and therefore evolution.
They are really baffling. Each case actually disproves mutation, if you are rational, intelligent, logical and honest. Now you understand why Darwin’s worshippers cannot see this!!
If I used parallel examples to prove Judaism, atheists would have me roasting over a fire on a toasting fork in a jiffy. Mind you, they probably would do even without such provocation. Mind you,again, should it be a kosher toasting fork, or perhaps as humans are not deemed ‘meat’ you might …? On the other hand …. OK – back to obviously stuff.
The Claim About Brand New Alleles and Pathways
The claim is that ‘brand new alleles’ – genes – that improve survival chances are ‘produced’ through evolutionary mutation.
More amazingly, organisms build on these to create ab initio ‘new metabolic pathways’ – a whole new body of new genetic information.
It is demonstrably self-evident that this is never seen in nature and that constant artificial reproduction of adapted organisms is parallel to interbreeding cattle that give richer milk, or dogs to create Chihuahuas.
Antibiotic Resistance: The Most Famous Claim
These entirely new genes are most-famously claimed, as above, for bacteria previously controllable by antibiotics such as penicillin.
These have ‘mutated’ to become resistant to almost all of them. This is so obvious that the experts merely repeat that the bacteria have ‘become more drug-resistant’.
We have explained just above however that no one looks into the detail, which they themselves publish, that reveals the simple truth.
The nasty little things die in their trillions except for a few which were always – always – resistant. These survive as the ‘Fittest’ and thrive in the absence of competition. They did not mutate. They survived because they were different to begin with.
Now there was no one left to pinch their favourite food, so they exploded in numbers.
Yes, they have metabolic pathways and other tricks that allow them so to conform themselves as to survive. This is nothing new. They have always had them. Their dead cousins did not.
Yes, they now use these new pathways they always had, in order to survive. They absolutely have never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever have been found to ‘mutate’ as in Darwin.
And despite those five ‘evers’, you just will not believe me so I must give a little more detail.
Timeline of Antibiotic Resistance
In 1967 the first Penicillin-resistant Streptococcus pneumoniae was observed; then Tetracycline resistance exploded to 80% in the 1990s and then Kanamycin became clinically useless.
This clearly indicates a rapid growth of antibiotic resistant bacteria; but let us understand how antibiotics work.
How Antibiotics Work
When patients are given, say, Streptomyces antibiotics these cunningly stop ribosomes (protein synthesis thingies) in their target-disease cells from using protein. These cells ‘starve’.
Surrounding human cells are immune to the antibiotic and carry on chomping. The nasty bug dies off.
Penicillin antibiotics work slightly differently in brutally making the targets’ cell walls burst. The nasty bug explodes. Again our human cell walls are immune to this.
Naturally Resistant Bacteria and Survival
However, a tiny number of disease bacteria always have had, (since Creation!), attributes which can neutralise various antibiotic SWAT team attacks.
Billions of their close cousins die, but they simply smile and survive.
How? Some literally pump out the antibiotic; some have protection proteins to change the bacteria’s conformation; some enzymes actually modify the antibiotic.
But all these defence techniques have been there from the beginning. There is absolutely no mutation whatsoever. None.
These naturally-resistant immune bugs survive. They find all their neighbours have been killed by the antibiotics.
Suddenly there is no competition for food and they go crazy. They have street parties, go wild and reproduce exponentially in their billions.
And they are really mega-nasty. They are the antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Lateral Gene Transfer
Further, it has always been possible for them to transfer their rare resistance genes to other bacteria, because ‘lateral gene transfer’ has always been a unique favourite party trick of bacteria.
By this method, an antibiotic-resistant bacterium can transfer its resistance to a friend. This is how they show affection.
There is absolutely no beneficial, permanent mutation whatsoever. None.
Claims of Massive Mutation Estimates
There are claims of some magic trick by which it is ‘estimated’ that 10,000,000,000 x 10,000,000,000 of the bacteria – before being killed – mutate and develop resistance.
This is insane speculation. First, they must do this quickly before the antibiotic gets to them. Impossible.
Secondly, this has never been observed – merely presumed. Impossible.
Thirdly, this imaginary mutation would not be beneficial as it would compromise survival in a normal environment. Impossible.
Fatal Mutations and Temporary Benefits
Proper micro-biologists all agree however that fatal mutations – like cancers – do occur and can confer resistance by chance to an antibiotic.
Indeed, bacteria do suffer from these. Ultimately, as in all forms of life, this leads to extinction.
However, as in all forms of life, these negative mutations can temporarily have surprising benefits.
In humans, we have read of sickle cell disease above. In a minute number of bacteria, a fatal mutation could possibly create immunity.
The ‘stricken’ but newly resistant bacteria would not die from the antibiotic but from the mutation, which will have made them more susceptible to other antibiotics, unable to function competitively or otherwise fatally compromised.
There is absolutely no beneficial, permanent mutation whatsoever. None.
Human Activity and Resistant Strains
But, once a strain of bacteria has achieved resistance, it explodes in number – usually through human activity – because we keep on killing off its competitors by flooding the population with our increasingly ineffective antibiotics.
This will have tragic consequences but do not blame Mother Mutation. For once, I can be on her side.
Bacteria Are Pre-Set With Defensive Tricks
Thus the fact is that bacteria are pre-set with a set of tricks to defeat their natural competition with other bacteria.
Some of these include resisting antibiotics – which are simply competitor bacteria artificially-introduced by doctors.
Bacteria have always done this quietly even before little men in white coats started poking them and making them squeal.
Artificial Experiments and Adaptation Claims
As to the plethora of experiments on these poor tiny organisms, the adaptations at this micro-level are beneficial to the micro-organisms themselves only within the false environment created to force them to happen.
They are nearly always lethal to any corpus that is comprised of billions of such micro-organisms – such as a palaeontologist or dinosaur.
The experiments are obviously incredibly artificial and rely on relentless, carefully-orchestrated repetitions under stringent and specialised conditions.
If adaptation at this level is detected, it can scarcely be stated to be random or the result of natural selection.
The amount of effort and time taken to achieve any sign of adaptation in these experiments actually prove that, as we discussed earlier, there has not been enough time in our universe even to change a skin cell into a hair cell.
Other Bacteria Claimed to Have ‘Mutated’
Having dealt with the most popular myth of mutating bacteria and resistance to antibiotics above, let us look really closely at some of the other bacteria claimed to have ‘mutated’:
Escherichia coli and Temperature Adaptation
Escherichia coli (a nasty little germy thing – known to its very few friends as E.coli) adapts to high and low temperatures.
Poor little E.coli clones were cruelly warmed or frozen for 2000 generations and then this was repeated.
After this heartless experiment, the little fellows are reported as being 10% and 20% better adapted to surviving in the cold or heat respectively.
Where specifically is the mutation?
The remnants had not mutated at all, they were simply E.coli bacteria that were originally better able to deal with the temperatures.
After 2000 generations of cold feet, those with hair between their toes survived.
This trait – and the ability to adapt – is patently obviously built in to some of the E. coli’s original genetic code.
Unproven. Case dismissed.
Chlamydomonas and Dark Growth
Chlamydomonas also have chlamy feet. They are also minute green slimy things – algae.
Unsurprisingly they enjoy spring sunlight. We all do.
But ‘they are somewhat capable of growing in the dark by using acetate as a carbon source.’ Now you and I may not regard that as fun, but they do.
These poor things were grown for 600 generation in the dark.
And, surprise, surprise, the ones that survived in the dark – – survived in the dark.
My laser sharp intellect was fully taxed to appreciate that otherwise they would not have survived. It was after all dark.
Further, we are told that lots of their babies kept in the dark survived – with no enthusiasm – but they survived.
This apparently proves ‘new, beneficial mutations are capable of adapting an organism that almost required light for survival…’.
Sorry, my CV may, most misleadingly, suggest some modest achievement, but that one just went miles over my head.
Some could anyway grow in the dark before the experiment – they ‘almost’ required light.
They were put in the dark. Some grew in the dark. Lots didn’t develop in the dark. They deceased.
Only those that did not die – well – survived. They had babies.
Remember, they did not mutate – they survived. They used a trait previously in them.
The magic word ‘adapting’ is actually used. Perhaps I missed something?
Unproven. Case dismissed.
Chlamydomonas and Size Selection
Chlamydomonas not only have clammy feet, they can have big feet.
By sieving them in their millions through a fine sieve, the bigger Chlamydomonas were isolated and then kept together.
After forty generations, one ended up with – what a surprise – bigger Chlamydomonas.
Where is the mutation?
At best, this is artificial selection again using an inherent trait – as in chihuahuas. So, woof to that.
Unproven. Case dismissed.
Beer Yeast and Phosphate Starvation
Apparently, beer yeast is Darwinian.
Another fact about yeast is that chomps phosphate. It lives off the stuff. So, being nasty scientists, they made it go on a starvation diet.
Very un-Christian; well – they are atheists.
After 800 generations in a phosphate-limited environment, there were a series of pronounced improvements in its surviving on different food.
These occurred because of ‘an extremely important mechanism in evolutionary history’.
This was the ‘mutation’ of the permeable molecule (allowing permeation of the food through its cell wall), and separately the ‘mutation’ of the phosphatase (the phosphate chomping bit).
Strangely, in the repeated repetitions of this experiment, these mutations occurred in different orders. So they did not actually rely one on the other.
Sorry to be boring – but ‘Where is the mutation? At best, this may be selection again using an inherent trait.’
Yeast absorbs phosphate. It has mechanisms to do this.
Under extreme conditions, it has mechanisms to survive, inherently within its genetic script.
Even my metabolism will adapt if I fast or eat only doughnuts or only lean steak: my entire internal body chemistry changes.
This does not mean that I am mutating into becoming a doughnut eater from a primal hunter and gatherer.
Show me food and I will do anything necessary to live on it. In fact, show me food and I will do anything necessary to get my hands on it. In this, I am very like a bacterium.
No novelty appeared. The yeast did not become a different strain of yeast.
Unproven. Case dismissed.
Long-Term E. coli Experiments
E. coli just drew the short straw again. More vivisection.
For decades, this unfortunate bacterium has been subjected to incessant battering. It ticks many boxes for any researcher, the most important being its astounding rate of reproduction.
Without question, researchers have shown that it has the ability to lose and gain, at a molecular level, certain traits.
This then improves dramatically its ability to survive in highly artificial environments.
But those very adaptations, involving survival mechanisms, spell death in any other than such environments.
In a natural, random environment such bacteria would not have a chance.
Further, the ‘mutations’ widely quoted are always inherent traits or mechanisms which have been previously used in another micro-biological process within the bacterium in question.
Citrate Survival Experiments
In this series of experiments E coli was, rather like the yeast, forced to survive on unnatural and second choice nutrition.
Here, its ability to survive on citrate was tested.
Again no new strain appeared. The old strain simply adapted.
Similar results were obtained as with the beer yeast and phosphates.
Unproven. Case dismissed.
Starvation Diet Tests: Lactose and Glucose
Innumerable similar tests on starvation diets for bacteria – this time of lactose or glucose – produced identical results.
Yes, we can wonder at the versatility created within these organisms and it is a well-known fact that the certain bacteria can switch between gobbling up lactose or glucose.
But they only do this if no glucose is put into their baby-bottles and in fact, it would be an ultimately fatal mutation for a larger organism.
Such non-beneficial adaptation – or the loss of a useful trait – is uncontroversial.
Lenski’s E. coli Work
Dr Richard Lenski is the leading and evidently very persistent researcher whose work is most often quoted on E.coli.
He has produced trillions of bacteria.
Careful research of his results prove his brilliance and persistence but one could not find one example of anything that could not be simply inherent adaptive capacity within the DNA of his subjects.
Adaptation Misquoted as Mutation
So, yes, as above, micro-biologists have found survival of the fittest or adaptation and called it ‘mutations’.
They adapt – not mutate – rapidly to become resilient to ridiculously artificial nutritional regimes or drugs.
Many do not adapt but die leaving naturally resilient strains to survive and reproduce.
They need to prove beneficial, irrefutable, progressional mutation happening in nature by pure chance.
What do they do?
They quote from reactions to the most highly-artificial interference imaginable –progressively trying chemically to exterminate an organism.
Further, this is palpably not the mutation Darwin espouses.
They are literally scraping the microscope slide for examples.
This is so far from mutation that even a bacterium could see the difference. Even I can see the difference.
Conclusion: Mutation vs Proof
These tiny creatures bravely step up and prove that Darwin has far, far less than a balance of probabilities on his side – never mind proof beyond any reasonable doubt – and forget scientific evidence.
And yet the atheists insist on scientific proof from the faith-head-blockheads and roar with laughter at us.
Here is ocular proof that their own faith relies on fantastic nonsense.
Yes, we must admire them as a men of truth and scrupulous research but also faith.
They have indeed absolute faith in immaculate mutation.
Leave a Reply