Darwinists' confessions about the mutations

There is no evidence mutations create new structures. They merely
alter existing ones.
Davis and Kenyon , Of Pandas and People, p. 11
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."
Cohen, I.L. (1984)"Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities ", New
York: New ResearchPublications, Inc., p. 81.
Micro-mutations do occur, but the theory that they can account
forevolutionary change is either falsified or else it is an
unfalsifiable, hencemetaphysical, theory. 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?" …
Soren Lovtrup, (1987) Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, London:
Croom Helm, p. 422
It is a considerable strainon one's credulity to assume that finely
balanced systems such ascertain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates,
or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is
even more true of some ecological chain relationships.
Mayr, Ernst (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Species , p. 296
What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce
evolutionary] change? Insum, 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.(Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p.
87)
Stephen Jay Gould:
You don't make new species by mutating the species. . . . A mutation
isnot the cause of evolutionary change.
Stephen J. Gould, speech at Hobart College, February 14, 1980.
Prof. Richard B. Goldschmidt (University of California at Berkeley):
It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus,
etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is
equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection
of micromutations [one or only a few mutations]. Inthe best-known
organisms, like Drosophila, innumerablemutants are known. If we were
able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single
individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoeverto any type
known as a [new] species in nature.
Richard B. Goldschmidt, "Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,"
American Scientist , Vol. 40 (January 1952), p. 94
. . I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change
in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't affect seriously the
function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an
instance."—*George Wald, in *Paul S. Moorehead and *Martin M. Kaplan,
Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution,
pp. 18-19.
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants
to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is
evenmore 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 failto occur.... There is no law against day dreaming, but science
must not indulge in it."
Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977) Evolution of Living Organism Academic Press
, New York, N.Y., p. 103 - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -