The ratio of deleterious beneficial mutations to beneficial mutations is somewhere between 100,000:1 and 1,000,000:1. There are up to a million harmful mutations for every good mutation. The problem this creates for evolutionary time-frames, when you need many beneficial mutations to accumulate quickly, is insurmountable on its own.
But there is another problem evolution faces that compounds the size of this problem and it is this: Not a single one of those beneficial mutations can add any significant genetic complexity to an organism! Let me explain.
The majority of mutations fall into two basic classes. They will either jam an existing genetic signal in the “off” or “on” positions or duplicate it. That’s all, nothing more, nothing less. This is due to the receptor being removed and no longer responding to its signalling molecules. While this may at times be useful, it does not support the assumption that complex biochemical genetics has arisen via evolution. It is clearly a loss of information from the original genetic instruction. The vast majority of these mutations create dysfunction. In extremely rare situations they can benefit an organism. But this is not a mechanism that can create men and women out of a single cell.
For over 100 years, an army of scientists have searched diligently for any mutations that have added beneficial complexity to a genome. Yet, in all of the world’s scientific literature there is not yet a single, clear cut example of a mutation actually adding extra beneficial genetic complexity to an organism. Over and over again I have read in my background study for this essay that their rarity precludes their scientific study. Dr Jerry Bergman’s extensive literature review in 2005 found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but only 186 included the term “beneficial mutation”, about 4 in every 10,000. Of those 186 “beneficial mutations” he found not a single one that unambiguously created new, more complex genetic information. For evolution to exist, it must continually create vast amounts of new genetic information of a higher order, but there is no observable scientific evidence to that effect.
So how can a mutation be beneficial without adding genetic information?
The often quoted examples of beneficial mutations such as adaptive immunity, nucleotide re-combination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, lactose tolerance in Europeans, resistance to HIV, and sickle-cell anaemia all fail to meet the requirements of an “increasing genetic complexity” mutation. These examples and all other examples of mutation-enhanced function quoted in the scientific literature involve loss, jamming or mere duplication of genetic information. No novel, more complex genetic information has been added to those organisms. Beneficial mutations are therefore like scratches on a car that accidently make it more aerodynamic, or the same car losing a part so it is lighter and can go faster. The complete lack of examples is strong testimony against the validity of the prime axiom of evolution; that increasing genetic complexity is entirely due to mutational build up..
And this makes perfect sense as informational copying errors such as the different types of mutations that we know of: Point mutations, duplications, omissions, deletions, insertions, trans-locations and inversions can never increase the quality of the original information. This is especially the case as the human genome can carry several different messages inside the same single block of DNA! Our DNA is a multi-dimensional, multi-linguistic school of languages, something we humans will never achieve. Copying errors can never improve an encyclopaedia, a computer code or an instruction manual. DNA is all of these combined, and much, much more.
Evolutionary theory needs a high rate of beneficial mutations and for those mutations to create new information over time. Both of these assumptions are clearly false. There are virtually no beneficial mutations, those that exist create no significant new information. There is also not enough time for them to accumulate before the multitude to harmful mutations destroy the species in the meantime. The prime axiom of evolution; that mutations lead to upward genetic progression, is therefore a lie.