Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what pre-exists, but they do so in disorder. [Pierre-Paul Grass (evolutionist), Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York (1977), pp. 97, 98.]
As a generative principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate both in scope and theoretical grounding. [Jeffrey S. Wicken (evolutionist), The generation of complexity in evolution: a thermodynamic and information-theoretical discussion. Journal of Theoretical Biology, vol. 77, April 1979, pp. 351-352.]
In the meantime, the educated public continues to believe that Darwin has provided all the relevant answers by the magic formula of random mutation plus natural selectionquite unaware of the fact that random mutations turned out to be irrelevant and natural selection a tautology. [Arthur Koestler (evolutionist), Janus: A Summing Up, Random House, New York, 1978, pp. 184-185.]
Gould stated in an article dealing with whether or not evolution could be explained by mutation-selection:
"That theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy."
Gould now argues that evolution takes place in large jumps (hopeful monsters). However, there is no mechanism in place to explain hopeful monsters, and the question still remains: what would a hopeful monster mate with?
By the way, don't argue with me about these statements. Don't shoot the messenger!
™ Version 4.2
