"For if we would judge ourselves, we should not be judged." 1 Corinthians 11:31

"Beneficial mutations are the foundation of evolution by natural selection."
-Clyde Winters, "Can Parallel Mutations and Neutral Genome Selection Explain Easteran African M1," Indian Journal of Human Genetics, Sept-Dec, 2007, 13(3), p. 93

This is a common phrase found among evolutionist circles, and if beneficial mutation is the foundation of biological evolution, then we should examine this closely to see if there is any truth to the religious claims. What ends up deceiving people the most is that when an evolutionist says "beneficial mutation," we get an idea of what that means in our heads, but what evolution actually requires for it to work is FAR beyond imagination, let alone reality.

"Normal fruit flies have two wings. This mutant has four. This rare mutation, like most mutations, is harmful. Beneficial mutations are the raw material for natural selection." -Biology: Principles & Explorations, Holt, 1996, p. 324 As we look carefully at this high school textbook, we see an example of a four-winged fly, which is an obvious mutation since most flies only have two wings. It admits to this being a harmful mutation, but leaves out the fact that this fly is unable to get airborne. Then, it says that evolution relies on beneficial mutations, which means they showed us an example of a bad mutation, and then said that good mutations is how evolution works. Why didn't they show us a good mutation? This is a fine example of a "take-our-word-for-it" moment in the religious indoctrination evolutionists give students. They show pictures of what doesn't work, and then rely on the student to IMAGINE evolution working.

Here's a typical example of how students are deceived in public schools:
"Sickle cell anemia is a recessive genetic disorder... It is particularly common in African populations. People with sickle cell anemia have defective hemoglobin proteins that cause their red blood cells to be irregularly shaped. As a result, the red blood cells have difficulty moving through small blood vessels and cannot properly transport oxygen to tissues... Evolution has favored the sickle cell allele in Central Africa because heterozygous people are more resistant to malaria, a leading cause of illness and death in the tropics."
-G.B. Johnson & G.J. Brusca, Biology: Visualizing Life, Holt, 1994, p. 128-129, ISBN: 0-03-053817-3 Malaria is actually an infection that contains parasites that travel through the body in red blood cells. However, if someone has sickle-shaped cells, the malaria parasites can't travel through the body. This is not "resistance," it's simply a deformation in the human body that leaves parasites without a proper vehicle for transportation.

People with sickle-cell can die in a variety of ways. Sometimes it is a lack of proper blood to the organs and they get damaged or shut down. Sometimes it is infection of the spleen. Sometimes it is rapid break down of blood cells which leads to lack of oxygen for the body. This disease kills about 1,000 babies every year in the U.S. alone, and the numbers are much higher in Africa, but those who live with the disease suffer daily from it, leaving them completely helpless in some cases.

This textbook is telling us that evolution has FAVORED Africans with this disease because people with sickle cell are less likely to get malaria. But if you don't die from malaria, odds are, you will die from sickle cell, so how can that be a benefit? The textbook's statement above is coming from an evolutionist that thinks survival is the only factor in determining what is beneficial.

Let's create a scenario to explain the problem with the evolution interpretation: Let's say you and an armless man are both trapped in mine. The entrance has collapsed. Oxygen is running low. In this situation, the armless man would actually out-live you in the mine because, without any arms, his body uses less oxygen. So is it a benefit to have no arms? Of course not, because he's still going to die.

Now let's say you found a passage out where you could climb up a small shaft and escape, but obviously, the armless man is without arms, so he is unable to climb.
Is it a benefit to have no arms? Of course not, because he's still going to die unless you go get people to help dig him out.

Either way, the mutation is HARMFUL, not beneficial. It doesn't matter which way you look at it; having no arms doesn't help. And likewise, it doesn't matter which way you look at it, having sickle cell anemia doesn't help. It's like saying, "If I pull out all my teeth, I won't get a cavity!" It's true that if you pull out all your teeth, you won't ever get a cavity, but you better get a potato masher because there is a long list of other things you can't do. In every case I have ever seen, "beneficial mutations" are a loss of genetic information, and evolutionists are trying to "look on the bright side" because their religious imaginary world would require millions of new pieces of brand new information that has never existed before to be constantly added to our gene pools, and that is not found in nature.

Real evolution would require sickle cell anemia to have no harmful effects, and still improve one's immunity to other illnesses. This is not what we find in reality, so this sickle cell/malaria combo used to preach evolution is a fine example of the best they've got.

There are some examples we cover in other articles, and one of those is bacterial resistance to drugs. Bacterial "resistance" is another example of a LOSS of genetic information that puts bacteria at a disadvantage, and simply makes it so that certain drugs can't connect with the misshapen bacteria.
(Read "Creationist Answer to Bacterial Resistance" here at creationliberty.com for more details)

Most all examples you will hear from an evolutionist converge on the same illusion that something is "resistant," and therefore, a beneficial mutation occured that will lead to rapid changes that contain the power to turn a rock into a human over 4 billion years. To be blunt, if evolutionists started teaching that Pacman was a real microscopic being, it would be more believable.

Let's look at a different type of argument about a growth anomoly being used as evidence of Darwinian evolution. For example, the so-called "superboy" born in Germany back around the year 2000 was used in a religiously biased "rational wiki" as a "vivid example of beneficial mutation:"
"Somewhere in Germany is a baby Superman, born in Berlin with bulging arm and leg muscles. Not yet 5, he can hold seven-pound weights with arms extended, something many adults cannot do. He has muscles twice the size of other kids his age and half their body fat."
-Associated Press, "Genetic Mutation Turns Tot Into Superboy," NBC News, June 24, 2004, retrieved July 27, 2013, [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5278028/ns/health-genetics/t/genetic-mutationturns-tot-superboy/#.UfO_o9LOu3M]

Evolutionists make this sound very convincing unless we read the entire article and get ALL the information: "The boy’s mutant DNA segment was found to block production of a protein called myostatin that limits muscle growth. The news comes seven years after researchers at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore created buff 'mighty mice' by 'turning off' the gene that directs cells to produce myostatin."

-Associated Press, "Genetic Mutation Turns Tot Into Superboy," NBC News, June 24, 2004, retrieved July 27, 2013, [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5278028/ns/health-genetics/t/genetic-mutationturns-tot-superboy/#.UfO_o9LOu3M]

Our bodies not only produce protiens encoded to develop muscles, bones, organs, etc, but they also develope protiens encoded to tell them when it's enough. How does your head hair never stop growing, but the hair on your arm has a limit? There are DNA instructions to tell it to stop, and likewise, all that has happened in the boy is that the instructions to stop muscle growth were removed.

So is this some brand new information that gives him benefits? In fact, it's not:
"The boy is healthy now, but doctors worry he could eventually suffer heart or other health problems... Internet marketers have been hawking 'myostatin-blocking' supplements to bodybuilders, though doctors say the products are useless and perhaps dangerous."
-Associated Press, "Genetic Mutation Turns Tot Into Superboy," NBC News, June 24, 2004, retrieved July 27, 2013, [http://www.nbcnews.com/id/5278028/ns/health-genetics/t/genetic-mutationturns-tot-superboy/#.UfO_o9LOu3M]

Science Daily posted an article on new research that is detecting serious problems:
"Now, a new University of Michigan study in mice suggests that while myostatin inhibitors may indeed bulk up muscles, they may also bring a troubling side effect -- small, brittle tendons that could make muscle injuries more likely... When you lift weights at the gym, muscle tissue gets damaged. That sets off the release of myostatin, starting a process that clears away damaged proteins and sets the stage for muscle rebuilding... The study suggests we need normal myostatin action for other reasons, too."
-Science Daily, "Drugs To Bulk Up Muscles May Make Injuries More Likely," Jan 23, 2008, retrieved July 27, 2013 [http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080122165601.htm]

If myostatin isn't available to take away damaged tissue, the tissue remains, and that means, over time, that muscle mass isn't sturdy, and that makes muscles vunerable to serious injuries. The studies being done on myostatin blocking is relatively new, and that means no one has seen the damaging effects this will have over time, especially in old age. We are in complete ignorance as to what effects this DNA mutation has, and in that complete ignorance, some evolutionists jump at the chance to use this as an argument for "evidence for evolution" via "beneficial mutation," and it shows their religious foolishness and desperation to justify their religion as "science."

It is shocking when the public learns that these are among the best arguments evolutionists have for beneficial mutation, and beneficial mutation is supposed to be the foundation for how Darwinian evolution works. This is why I refer to evolution as one of the dumbest religions on the planet, but also one of the most dangerous because it's so deceptive to the average layman who isn't looking too closely.

🔍