About 30 years ago, I acquired a white cat named Peewee. As you can see, he looks like a normal cat, and for all intents and purposes, he was normal. But notice the little bend near the tip of the tail. This was a genetic defect inherited from his mother, for she had the same bend in her tail. If Peewee had ever fathered kittens, some or all of them would likely have had that same defect. But this was a completely harmless mutation. It had no effect on Peewee or his mother, and it would have had no effect on his offspring. It gave no advantage or disadvantage over other cats. I think this points to a serious problem with evolutionary theory.

Evolution, we are told, works by natural selection favoring animals with certain random genetic mutational changes. These random mutations happen fairly often, and over x number of generations, those organisms with advantageous mutations survive and increase, and those that don’t eventually die out. This is an over-simplified explanation of how evolution is supposed to work, but I think evolutionary theory itself has been over-simplified to make it sound plausible.

Mutations do occur, but the vast majority of them are either detrimental or innocuous. We would call them birth defects if we noticed them at all. In comparison, beneficial mutations rarely (if ever) happen. In other words, the number of birth defects far exceeds the number of improvements to a species. We can understand how natural selection can filter out harmful mutations. Some make the offspring infertile. Others make it much more difficult for the animal to survive in the wild. But what about mutations like a bent tail that have no influence on the survival of the species? How can natural selection filter them out? Or perhaps we should ask if they are filtered out at all.

If a beneficial mutation occurs in a dog, that dog must separate from the other dogs to form its own pack to maintain that mutation in a separate gene pool. Otherwise the mutation gets ‘lost’ in the original gene pool as the dog breeds with other dogs that don’t have that mutation. But there can’t be a separate gene pool at first because the dog with the beneficial mutation has no other dogs with the same mutation to mate with. It has to breed with other non-mutated dogs, and hence each puppy may or may not have the mutation. Eventually, however, if the beneficial mutation is to have a chance to take over, the pack must split: one pack containing primarily dogs with the mutation, and another those without, and the packs must forever remain separate from each other. If evolution is true, this must have occurred at least billions of times between the first living cell and the large number of unique and complex lifeforms present today. This seems a bit of a stretch to me, but it’s only the beginning of the problem.

Assuming this has occured billions of times (and I think this is a big assumption), what is there to prevent this same mechanism from acting on innocuous mutations as well? They should also eventually form separate gene pools, and probably much more often, because there are more innocuous mutations than advantageous ones. But why don’t we see very many innocuous mutations? The features of most of today’s lifeforms are useful and advantageous. Why is that? Take bent tails for example. We can see that they occur. But why aren’t most tails bent? If tails came about through a series of random mutations, why should they be symmetrical at all? Yet we recognize a straight tail as normal, and anything other than that as somehow a corruption of the norm, never as something that hasn’t quite fully evolved yet.

Peewee the cat
Why are fingernails on the ends of fingers and claws on the ends of paws and feet? These are most useful locations. If mutations are random, nails and claws could have appeared almost anywhere – on one’s back for example. In most places they would not give a survival advantage or disadvantage compared to those without nails. Those ‘back nail’ mutations would have continued in the gene pool. But there are no ‘back nails’, ‘elbow nails’, ‘nose nails’, etc. What are the chances that nails and claws appeared only once and in just the most useful location? What are the chances that each of our bodily features appeared exactly where needed? Consider how many species there are and the number of supposed mutations required to reach their current stage of evolution. We’re talking at least billions, if not trillions, of mutations, and almost all of those mutations are optimal for the survival of the species. What are the chances of that happening with very few, if any, innocuous mutations being passed on? The ratio of advantageous features to innocuous features is too high for evolution to account for.

Of course, according to evolutionary theory, nails and claws would not have appeared fully formed at first. Nail and claws are defined by thousands of DNA base-pairs. It would have taken tens or hundreds of thousands of years for them to evolve. The first mutations may have just produced a rough patch on the skin, if they were visible at all. But that means the beginnings of nails and claws were just innocuous mutations. They were not useful as nails, claws, or anything at first. Those innocuous ‘pre-claws’ survived natural selection to evolve into fully formed nails and claws. Why don’t other innocuous mutations survive? How does blind evolution know if an innocuous mutation will eventually lead to advantageous mutations so it can be retained, while filtering out the other mutations?

Moreover, even though evolution supposedly filters out sub-optimal mutations over time, we see plenty of lifeforms that have disadvantages coexisting with others that have advantages. Multiple varieties of ants, for example, exist in the same habitat, and although many times one has an advantage over the others and they fight each other, they’re not being forced in the direction of extinction. Apart from environmental changes, their populations remain steady over the long term.

Evolution simplifies things too much so it can sound believable. It appears true on the surface, but if you seriously think about it and investigate it, you’ll find many holes impossible to fill. Many evolutionary scientists, some tops in their field, have also considered the difficulties and abandoned the theory 1. The Bible, on the other hand, seems very implausible on the surface, but the more I study it, the more I see it matches reality. The Bible will stand up to close scrutiny much better than evolution.


  1. The Origin Of Species Revisited by W.R. Bird identifies many of these ex-evolutionists.


Evolution and Harmless Mutations — 1 Comment

  1. Too bad your “Evolution and Harmless Mutations” essay didn’t have space for comments.

    Regarding your cats’ kinked tail, that is a dominant trait, assuming his father was regular-tailed and did not carry the DNA for kinked trait. A single kink-gene donated from momma kitty shows up in handsome boy! If he sires 100 kittens, 50 will have kink-tail and 50 will be totally normal-tailed, statistically speaking. Easy to see how this works.

    Regarding claws/nails growing out of ones’ elbow… The most conservative model would be that it is a recessive trait, requiring input from both parents in order to be expressed. Surely if the trait/gene existed at all, anywhere, there would have been elbow-claws reported in the last 4000 years (or millions of years if you are a godless evolutionist!) by somebody astute enough to notice this oddity! Surely two parents, each carrying the unexpressed recessive trait, would have statistically mated at some time in history, spread out over billions of successful matings, and produced just one child with elbow-claw. But that just hasn’t happened. No cave paintings depicting this anomolie. Nothing in medical literature.

    Then there is the model of the eyeball and irreducible complexity that just flat out lays waste to gradual development of fantastic organs.

    My favorite tactic with evolutionists is to have them imagine throwing a piece of sirloin steak into the salty ocean, then have them zap it with good, old-fashioned lightening over and over. Hey, it’s ALL the chemicals for living cells present in a water solution, aided by energy strikes to make everything work, just like their life-from-steamy-rock-soup / simple-amino-acids / lightening-strikes theory of how the first cell got started! I even gave them a logarithmically massive head start by giving them all the concentrated, preformed DNA and all amino acids/proteins/sugars and lipids necessary for their theory (not some weak rock-soup). Saves them billions of centuries of waiting! But none of them are too eager to create their own evolutionary life forms using their newly identified Junior Pocket-Model Designer Evolution Kit by Ronco. Hmmmm, wonder why? Chicken-shts or they utterly realize their faith/belief system is bankrupt? (But have nowhere else to turn). They have faith in their unproven, non-reproducible, non-scientific-method belief system, thus it is a kooky, arrogant religion with massive unfounded faith in man’s clever opinion. Jim Jones would be proud of them. Scripture would call them fools. Reproducible science would call them fools. They just might be the lawless mentioned in Matt 7:23, connected to failing to beware false teachers in Matt 7:15.

    “Without Me you can do nothing” –John 15:5 Could also read: Without Me you cannot believe I created the universe as written in Genesis 1. Or, Without Me you cannot beware false teachers.

    They are backandedly telling you they are wicked fools, unbelievers who are condemned already, see Jesus’ words at John 3:18,36.

    We can only hope and pray that it is God’s will to turn some or all of them to Himself. He owes them nothing. They sure cannot come to Him on their own volition, proven in John 6:65. Don’t let Steve Gregg and his opinionayed arminian, anti-calvin, philosophical, self-asserting radio show (2-3 pm, Pacific Time, many stations) tell you any different. The guy is definitely a very knowledgeable, subtle false teacher, secretly bringing in antichrist selfish error, masquarading as a Christ-follower. Do call his show (844-484-5737) and use up his radio time if possible while correcting him.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>