erent matter. The fruit fly experiments certainly don't prove it.

Consider the facts. Most of the induced mutations killed the subjects. Some died immediately; others had shorter life spans. If the fly survived at all, it was often sterile or its offspring were too weak to survive. What mutations weren't harmful were at best neutral, producing only trivial results

Naturalists claim that evolution is driven by beneficial mutations. Is that a plausible explanation for the diversity found in nature? Let's check it out.

Induced Mutations

Noted geneticists, Thomas Morgan and Herman Muller conducted a prolonged study of fruit flies (drosophila) looking for traces of evolution. But generation after generation, the uncooperative flies refused to evolve. Eventually they solved the problem, or at least they thought they had. They subjected a pure strain of fruit flies to chemical and radiation treatments. The result was mutilated flies. Flies developed yellow, brown, or purple eyes; or bulging, flat, or dented eyes. Some flies had no eyes.

Other abnormalities appeared. Flies came with fine or coarse hair, or curly or ruffled hair. Then again some were bald. A few flies were without antennae. The variation in their wing patterns was striking. Some wings were broad, others were truncated. Occasionally, the wings were so small, the fly couldn't fly. There were big flies, little flies, active flies, and sluggish flies. The list of oddities goes on.

These mutilations were hailed as a success. Many naturalists claimed the matter was settled once and for all. Mutation is the driving force behind evolution.

Everyone agrees that mutations occur in nature. And these geneticists proved that by chemicals and radiations man could induce mutations. But to say that mutations result in new forms of life is an entirely different matter. The fruit fly experiments certainly don't prove it.

Consider the facts. Most of the induced mutations killed the subjects. Some died immediately; others had shorter life spans. If the fly survived at all, it was often sterile or its offspring were too weak to survive. What mutations weren't harmful were at best neutral, producing only trivial results.

ive flies refused to evolve. Eventually they solved the problem, or at least they thought they had. They subjected a pure strain of fruit flies to chemical and radiation treatments. The result was mutilated flies. Flies developed yellow, brown, or purple eyes; or bulging, flat, or dented eyes. Some flies had no eyes.

Other abnormalities appeared. Flies came with fine or coarse hair, or curly or ruffled hair. Then again some were bald. A few flies were without antennae. The variation in their wing patterns was striking. Some wings were broad, others were truncated. Occasionally, the wings were so small, the fly couldn't fly. There were big flies, little flies, active flies, and sluggish flies. The list of oddities goes on.

These mutilations were hailed as a success. Many naturalists claimed the matter was settled once and for all. Mutation is the driving force behind evolution.

Everyone agrees that mutations occur in nature. And these geneticists proved that by chemicals and radiations man could induce mutations. But to say that mutations result in new forms of life is an entirely different matter. The fruit fly experiments certainly don't prove it.

Consider the facts. Most of the induced mutations killed the subjects. Some died immediately; others had shorter life spans. If the fly survived at all, it was often sterile or its offspring were too weak to survive. What mutations weren't harmful were at best neutral, producing only trivial results

ne or coarse hair, or curly or ruffled hair. Then again some were bald. A few flies were without antennae. The variation in their wing patterns was striking. Some wings were broad, others were truncated. Occasionally, the wings were so small, the fly couldn't fly. There were big flies, little flies, active flies, and sluggish flies. The list of oddities goes on.

These mutilations were hailed as a success. Many naturalists claimed the matter was settled once and for all. Mutation is the driving force behind evolution.

Everyone agrees that mutations occur in nature. And these geneticists proved that by chemicals and radiations man could induce mutations. But to say that mutations result in new forms of life is an entirely different matter. The fruit fly experiments certainly don't prove it.

Consider the facts. Most of the induced mutations killed the subjects. Some died immediately; others had shorter life spans. If the fly survived at all, it was often sterile or its offspring were too weak to survive. What mutations weren't harmful were at best neutral, producing only trivial results

ese mutilations were hailed as a success. Many naturalists claimed the matter was settled once and for all. Mutation is the driving force behind evolution.

Everyone agrees that mutations occur in nature. And these geneticists proved that by chemicals and radiations man could induce mutations. But to say that mutations result in new forms of life is an entirely different matter. The fruit fly experiments certainly don't prove it.

Consider the facts. Most of the induced mutations killed the subjects. Some died immediately; others had shorter life spans. If the fly survived at all, it was often sterile or its offspring were too weak to survive. What mutations weren't harmful were at best neutral, producing only trivial results

erent matter. The fruit fly experiments certainly don't prove it.

Consider the facts. Most of the induced mutations killed the subjects. Some died immediately; others had shorter life spans. If the fly survived at all, it was often sterile or its offspring were too weak to survive. What mutations weren't harmful were at best neutral, producing only trivial results. None of the mutations could honestly be called beneficial.

These experiments went on for 17 years. What did they really prove? Little more than we already knew. Namely, all living things reproduce after their own kind. Regardless of how those fruit flies were treated or mistreated, the only things they're going to produce are -- other fruit flies. It doesn't seem to matter how many generations are observed.

Considering a new generation of fruit flies matures in less than two weeks, the geneticists in the "fly" room studied over 442 generations of fruit flies in 17 years. They did everything they could think of to make them evolve into something else. They didn't.

Here is a question for you: Do you think those scientists would have abandoned their 17 year project if they still had any hope of engineering a new species? No, I don't believe they would either. Perhaps the most important lesson to learn from the fruit fly experiment is the remarkable stability of this species.

Another question: If positive, or benefical mutations are the driving force behind evolution, why couldn't the "fly" room come up with a single unambiguous positive mutation in 17 years and 442 generations of experiments?

Natural Mutations

What do we know of genetic mutations affecting humans? According to Reader's Digest, ABC's of the Human Body, scientists have identified 1,800 diseases transmitted by defective genes. They claim that of all babies born alive to