AFTER ITS KIND
From the book by the same name (1958)
Farmers, gardeners, orchardists, animal-breeders and experimenters have long borne witness to the fact that new forms have arisen in the stocks of plants and animals with which they have dealt. It is by the production of these new varieties that man has steadily improved the plants and domestic animals which he values. These new forms have been secured in two ways, either by the purposeful crossing of different varieties, or by discovering them after they had arisen. Luther Burbank, for example, who gave to the world more new and valuable varieties of plants, perhaps, than any other single individual, secured these new varieties either by deliberate crossing of different types and selecting promising new forms that come from the crosses in the second and subsequent generations, or by going about in his fields and picking out new forms that had arisen without any effort on his part. It is in the second manner that some of the most valuable varieties among our plants have been secured. To illustrate, in 1862 a Pennsylvania farmer named Fultz, who had a field of wheat of the kind known as Lancaster Red, observed a number of plants in the field different from the ordinal Lancaster Red. The seeds of these plants he gathered and planted, and found that they bred true, thus producing an excellent new variety known as Fultz Wheat. Again, in 1854 a Virginia farmer named Boughton discovered in his wheat fields a number of plants different from the ordinary. These, being gathered and planted, were the foundation of the variety of wheat called Tappanhannock Wheat. Other valuable varieties of wheat—Gold Coin, Cavalier, Hopetown and others—are said to have come into existence in the same way (2).
In species of plants and animals beside wheat, new forms or varieties are continually arising in a similar manner. Since the discovery of the laws of heredity known as Mendel's Laws, the heredity of plants and animals has been watched very closely, and new forms have been observed to arise in numerous species. A species which has been very closely studied in connection with
*Numbers in parentheses refer to sources of information listed at the end of the appendix. The word factor is used for gene.
Mendel's Laws is the fruit-fly, Drosophila Melanogaster, under the leadership of Prof. T. H. Morgan of Columbia University, and in this species under human observation considerable numbers of forms different from the normal have arisen. "Mutations," "mutants," "sports," "saltations" are names that are commonly given to these new forms, and they are said by evolutionists to be spontaneous, new additions to the organic world, new "creations," the "materials with which the evolution process builds." These new forms can not be truly new additions to the world of organisms if the Bible record of creation is true, since "on the seventh day God finished the work which He had made," and nothing genuinely new has come into being since. It is the purpose of this discussion, therefore, to show from nature itself that it is not necessary at all to believe that any new form which arises today under human observation or otherwise is truly new, but that it may be and very likely is creation old, having been placed in the species in the creative days and been hidden or latent in the species until somehow it has been revealed to man.
Description of Mutations.—All so-called mutations appear suddenly. Before the observer is aware of their presence they are there. They are changes from what seems to be the normal form of the species, changes affecting one or several different parts of the organism at once. Among the mutations which have appeared at separate times in the normally red eyed fruit-fly, Drosophila, are eyes of over thirty different colors, such as cherry, scarlet, blood, apricot, purple, buff, coral, vermilion, ecru, eosin, mahogany, ivory, rose, pink, white (12). New forms have also arisen in this species by changes not only in color, but in the size and shape of the body, wings, legs, and hairs of the flies! (See Fig. 56.) Once having appeared, all mutations are found to be obedient to Mendel's Laws in the same manner that forms or characters said to be old are. The vast majority of mutations behave in heredity as simple recessives. Of the several hundred mutants which have appeared in the fruit-fly, only about ten behave as dominants. Once having arisen, mutations usually breed perfectly true. In some cases the so-called mutant form goes back again to the normal, wild form from which it sprang. For example, in flies which have been closely watched, red (normal) eyed flies have given rise to white-eyed flies; these white-eyed flies have given rise to eosin (pinkish yellow) eyed flies; these eosin eyed flies have given rise to red (normal) eyed flies; and these red (normal) eyed flies have given rise to white eyed flies (12). One special feature which is supposed to distinguish a "mutation" from a simple variation is that a mutation is a form that appears seldom, while a variation is a form that appears often. This, however, is not a proper distinction, as we shall see. It is significant that a new form is called a mutation as long as the exact manner of its production is not understood. When, however, the Mendelian Law by which a new form arises is discovered and men know that they can themselves produce it
Fig. 56. A few of several hundred "new" forms of the fruit-fly Drosophita Melanogaster, which have arisen since 1910 from the so-called wild type of this species. At the top is a row of heads showing from the side various forms of eyes which have arisen. No. 1 is the normal eye possessed by the wild type fly. Nos. 2-6 are mutant forms, true breeding, called respectively kidney, lobe, bar, ultra-bar, no-eye. Below are drawings of flies showing new mutant types of wings. No. 1 is the form of wing of the wild type fly. Nos. 2-8 are mutant forms called respectively notch, cut, truncate, broad, miniature, club, vestigial. The wild fly has four pairs of chromosomes, and all the "new" forms which have arisen have also four chromosomes. The "new" forms are all fertile with one another and with the parent form, but not fertile with any other species of fly. Note that the mutations are losses rather than gains in structure. All our breeds of domestic animals have doubtless come by "mutation" just as have these new forms of flies.
by breeding, it is no longer called a "mutation" but a variation of old material.
What a Mutation Is According to Evolutionary Doctrine.—A mutation is said by evolutionists to be the spontaneous origination in the germ cells of species of new genes which did not exist before. A mutation in the evolutionary sense is a new creation, something coming out of nothing, or at least something greater coming out of something less.
What a Mutation Is according to the Creation View.-— A mutation is believed by those who uphold the biblical doctrine of creation, to be but the revealing of hidden genes put into species by the Creator in an act of special creation.
Ignorance of the Origin of Truly New Forms by "Mutation" on the part of the Evolutionist.---Those who would have us believe that mutations are something genuinely new added to the world by some mysterious, creative process to be building blocks for evolution can give no explanation whatever of what causes these new forms thus to arise. While it is understood, and may readily be granted, that the changes which produce mutation phenomena have their basis in the germ cells of the species, devotees of evolution walk in confessed ignorance of what produces them there. The changes producing mutations are described by Prof Conklin of Princeton as being "sudden transformations in Mendelian factors themselves, comparable to changes in chemical composition," but what brings about these alchemistic-like trans "formations" this evolutionist is unable to say, He can only say, "The cause of new hereditary characters, or rather mutations in genes (factors), is obscurey" (5). Other evolutionists have likewise acknowledged their ignorance of how these new "creations" arise by mutation. Professors Sinnott and Dunn of the University of Connecticut say, "the cause and origin of which (mutations) we do not understand" (14). Professors Babcock and Clausen of the University of California say, "Concerning the causes of mutations nothing is known" (1). Professors Bailey and Gilbert of Cornell University say, "What do new characters come from? The answer to this question would give us the keynote to the whole situation" (2) Professor H. S. Jennings of Johns Hopkins University says, "We do not understand the causes of these changes (mutations): we do not know how they are produced" (9). Professor H. H. Newman of Chicago University says "In bringing this discussion of the causes of heritable variations (mutations) to a close, we find ourselves in a somewhat pessimistic frame of mind. When all is said, it is found that our knowledge of what actually causes mutations is almost nothing. The really great evolutionary discovery of the future will probably be the finding out of the cause or the causes of mutations" (13).
Why Evolutionists Maintain Mutations Are New.—The question naturally arises at this point, "Why then, in view of such acknowledged ignorance, do evolutionists insist that mutations are realty new creations?" It is best to let one of their number, Professor Gates of London University, answer that question, which he does in his book Mutations and Evolution. He says, "To attempt to explain mutations away by assuming that nothing new has realty appeared is tantamount to a denial of evolution" (7). In other words, if mutations are not the coming into being of something really new there is and has been no evolution. The reason which this evolutionist gives is perfectly sufficient for some people, so prejudiced are they in favour of the evolutionary theory. Needless to say, however, it is not a reason that can satisfy those who do not believe in evolution or are seeking the truth in the matter.
Explanation of Mutations (1) Simple Dominance.—Mutations as the revelations of old, hidden forms through crossing have various simple explanations, and one of the simplest has its basis in the Mendelian Law of dominance. Investigation has disclosed that an old, recessive factor which is introduced into a strain of plants or a breed of animals in the beginning, may be concealed for an indefinite number of generations and be brought to light again whenever two individuals, each containing the recessive factor, are mated. How this can be will now be pointed out.
If an albino guinea pig is mated with a pure-breeding (homozygous) black guinea pig, the white character will disappear in the first generation of offspring, since black is dominant and white is recessive. If a male and female of this first, impure-breeding (heterozygous or hybrid) generation are mated, the albino character will reappear in the second filial generation in the proportion of one albino to three black guinea pigs (Fig 30). Thus, for one generation the white character will be concealed and then again revealed. If, however, one of the first, impure (heterozygous) generation of black guinea pigs is crossed with a pure (homozygous) black guinea pig, all of the offspring will still be black. The albino character will not be able to appear, and thus, for two generations, this visible character will be hid. And as long as a pure-breeding (homozygous) black guinea pig is one of the two engaged in the cross, be it male or female, the white character must continue to be hidden. Not until an impure-breeding (heterozygous) black guinea pig is permitted to mate with another impure black animal can the white character again come forth, when it will do so in the ratio three to one. What has been described here as taking place under the control of men can also take place under the control of nature, and thus a very old form, one introduced into the stock at the very beginning (at creation), can be brought to light as an apparently new thing.
(IT'S LIKE THE EXAMPLE I GAVE ELSEWHERE TO A BROTHER OF A STUDENT I WAS TEACHING. THE PARENTS WERE SHORT [FATHER ABOUT 5' 4" - MOTHER ABOUT 5'] - THE ONE SON I WAS TEACHING WAS ABOUT 5' 4" AT AGE 14; HIS BROTHER AT AGE 16 WAS 6' 8" TALL. WHEN YOU SAW THEM TOGETHER AS A FAMILY, IT WAS HARD TO BELIEVE THEY WERE ALL OF THE SAME BIOLOGICAL FAMILY - Keith Hunt)
One of the characteristics that causes new forms to be called "mutations" is that they appear at very infrequent intervals. It is easy, however, to understand how it could come about in nature that a recessive character should be enabled to appear extremely seldom. If the reader will turn to Figure 30 and imagine, first, that the number of generations presented there, both of the pure (homozygous) and the impure (heterozygous lines, were increased until a million guinea pigs were in existence; second, would then imagine that every white guinea pig was killed; third, would then imagine that the black guinea pigs surviving, and cross bred among themselves promiscuously, a white guinea-pig could appear among the blacks only when two impure-breeding were left to run wild when two impure-breeding (heterozygous) black animals (i. e.
such as are in the middle column) happened to mate. This, as the reader can see, would, on the basis of chance, all other things being equal as in this case, be very seldom. Such occasional white guinea pigs, when they did appear would then be true "mutations" in character.
The Galloway is a black breed of cattle. Very rarely, however, breeders of Galloway cattle are disappointed to find that a red calf has been born. The reason for this phenomenon is described by Babcock and Clausen as follows, "Since red is a simple recessive to black, and since red animals occurred in a foundation stock of the breeds at no very remote time, their appearance is presumably due to chance mating between two animals which were heterozygous for red and probably traced back through an unbroken line of heterozygous ancestors to the foundation stock of the breed" (1).
The above mentioned professors have made a calculation that if a breeder started with two black cattle which he had secured by mating a dominant black with a recessive red, and which were therefore both heterozygous for red and black (i. e. having genes for both red and black in their germ-cells), and proceeded out of these two to build up a great herd of black cattle by killing off every red animal that was born, in two hundred generations only one per cent of the black cattle would be heterozygous, having genes for red (1). In a vast herd of black cattle thus produced, say ten thousand head, a red calf might at rare intervals be born. Such a red calf would then have all the ear-marks of a "mutation," provided that no man had ever before seen a red calf and did not know that a red factor had been introduced into the herd in the very beginning. Evolutionists once considered the appearance of off-colored, recessive forms in pure domestic breeds of cattle as genuine mutations. Of late they have been compelled to back down from that position. We quote Sinnott and Dunn, "Occasionally, for instance, a red and a white calf appears in a pure-bred herd of black and white Holstein cattle in which only black and white animals have been recorded for several generations. Cole has found that red in such cases is not a new trait, but one which may have been present in the stock for many generations. Being recessive, the factor for red may be carried but not expressed until the chance mating of two heterozygotes provides the opportunity." (14).
Color mutations of the kind described above are among the most common and most characteristic mutations, and they are occasionally appearing in many wild species. In grey field mice and in wild rats, pure white animals very rarely appear. In skunks an albino animal has been known to occur once in a long while. The same is true in coyotes.
How we shall look at these, so-called mutations is the question. Shall we consider them as the appearing of old, concealed factors for white color of coats in those species, or shall we consider them as the evolutionists would have us do, as the coming of something truly new into the world? In view of what is known to be possible in the building up of a herd of cattle, and of what actually takes place in the reappearance of red calves in black breeds, it is more than likely that these so-called mutations in skunks and field mice and coyotes and other species are simply due to the fact that there are in those species comparatively few individuals who are heterozygous (i. e. carrying the factor for white in their germs), and it is only very seldom that two of such heterozygous individuals chance to mate. When they do white animals are produced. It is easy to see why so few of such heterozygous individuals should exist in the species mentioned. For one thing, such white varieties of the species are more conspicuous to their enemies than their fellows of a more dark and sober color, and the white forms, when they have appeared, have not been often able to survive long in the particular environments in which they appeared. They have, therefore, been selected out by nature just as the breeder selects out the red in a herd of black cattle he is building up. Figure 38 illustrates the concealment of the single-comb character (a recessive) for many generations in the manner described above. In this diagram the single-comb character might have been brought out at any point along the line by the mating of two hybrid (heterozygous) rose-comb chickens. The manner in which it is brought out in the diagram merely illustrates a special feature of Mendelian heredity in fowls. See Punnett's Mendelism, 6th ed., page 30.
(IT HAS BEEN KNOWN AND RECORDED TWO WHITE PEOPLE BRINGING FORTH A BLACK BABY; THOUGH OF COURSE VERY RARE. ALL OF THIS GIVES TRUTH TO THE OFTEN FUNNY STATEMENT ABOUT A CHILD BEING VERY DIFFERENT FROM THE PARENTS - "WELL MAYBE THE MILK MAN WAS IN ALL OF THIS." - Keith Hunt)
We have discussed one of the simplest manners in which apparently new forms may arise through cross breeding or hybridization by the use of old material, and doubtless this is one of the most common ways. There are, however, other possible ways in which crossing may bring forth old forms new to man. Mendelian investigation has revealed a great complexity in the laws of heredity discovered by Mendel.
Many modifications of the fundamental laws first discovered have been revealed. These modifications in no way destroy or weaken the general principles of Mendel's discovery. On the contrary they strengthen those principles. The discussion in this appendix does not pretend to be an exposition of the several modifications of Mendel's Laws, but a number of such modifications will be briefly described in order to give some conception of the many different ways it is possible for very old forms to be concealed in species and then be revealed through chance mating.
Explanations of Mutations (2) Complementary Factors.— Most of the outward characters men see in plants and animals are due to the effect of but one factor acting alone. It may in future be discovered by students of heredity that all visible characters are due to the combined effect of many factors instead of one, which at present seems to be the case. It is already known, however, that some visible characters can arise only when two or more factors are present. Bateson and Punnett found that in sweet peas, for example, there are white sweet peas which, when crossed with some white sweet peas, produced only white flowers, but which, when mated with other white sweet peas produce only purple flowers. Investigation of this phenomenon disclosed that in each of the white sweet peas which, by crossing, produced purple flowers, there were two independent factors. Separately each of these two independent factors produce white flowers. Together they produce only colored flowers. By chance two of the right kind of white flowers were mated by Bateson and Punnett, and that mating brought together the two factors which together produce colored-flowers. The first appearance of those colored sweet peas among white sweet peas was of the exact character of a mutation—the sudden, unexpected appearance of something apparently new. The colored flowers, however, were not truly new, for they were exactly like the wild, purple sweet peas that have been growing in Sicily for centuries (14). (See Fig. 57.)
In the above case two factors coming together are necessary to produce a striking change similar in character to a mutation.
Cases are known, however, when more than two factors are necessary to produce a new form. Purple corn is an odd type of corn that was being raised by the Indians of America when it was discovered. Purple corn, it has been learned, can not be produced in non-purple strains of corn unless four independent factors are brought together. With any one of these four independent factors missing purple corn is not produced (10).
Let the reader at this point pause and consider what this means in regard to producing very rare, yet very old forms by cross breeding. Let him assume, for example, that in a natural species, e. g. fruit-flies, four factors coming together in one individual would produce a white-eyed fly. In order for the white-eyed form to appear two flies would have to mate, one having two of the necessary factors and the other having two, or one having three of the necessary factors and the other having one. Either way the four necessary factors would be brought together and the white-eyed flies would appear. The event might not be a rare one if many or most of the interbreeding flies carried one, two or three of the necessary factors. If, however, many of the flies carried none of the necessary factors, or only one, it would be a rare event indeed when the four required factors got together. But when they did, lo, a mutation.
The situation can be partially visualized by reference to the game of cards. Those who are familiar with card games know how seldom four of the same kind all fall together in one hand when four people are playing. When eight are playing it is still more seldom. Yet it sometimes happens. This chance coming together of certain cards
Fig.57. Illustration of "mutation" produced by complementary factors. The column of flowers at the left, marked AA, represents one strain of white sweet peas. That at the right, marked BB, represents another strain. The two strains are white because of the presence in them of two genes for whiteness that are distinct from one another but which produce exactly the same effect. Separate from one another these genes produce only white flowers, but when they come together in one individual they have the combined effect of producing colored flowers. Designing the gene for white in the left column as A, and the gene for white in the other column as B, in Mendelian terminology it is said that AA produces white flowers; BB produces white flowers; AB produces colored flowers.
illustrates the chance getting together of multiple factors necessary for the production of new forms. Four seems to be a large number of factors necessary to produce a specific visible character, yet it is said by Mendelian investigators that cases are known in which some visible characters are produced only when there are as many as seven, twelve, and even more factors present together (14).
Explanation of Mutations  Inhibiting Factors.—Of a somewhat similar nature to the cases cited, though not exactly the same, are those cases in which a visible character which might be called a mutation can appear only when one factor is removed. There are known to be cases when certain old forms latent or hidden in plants and animals are prevented from appearing as long as two independent factors are together, but when, by chance mating, these two independent factors are separated, the forms come out. As an example may be taken the case of the chickens called White Leghorns. White Leghorns produce only white chicks when White Leghorns are bred among themselves. But when a White Leghorn is mated with a White Wyandotte, a few, but a very definite proportion of colored offspring appear in the descendants. Investigation of this hereditary phenomenon has revealed that White Leghorns are white because of the presence of two independent factors acting together. White Leghorns are really colored chickens, having the color prevented from appearing by a factor which is called an "inhibitor." This inhibiting factor does nothing but inhibit or prevent the color factor from showing its effect. When, however, this inhibiting factor gets separated from the color factor, as it does in some of the second filial generation when White Leghorns and White Wyandottes are crossed, the color factor shows its effect and colored chickens are produced (14). (See Fig. 58.) No cases are yet known when a certain visible character in a species is inhibited by more than one inhibiting factor. Such cases may be found to exist. But enough is already known to suggest how a rare and apparently new form, a "mutation," may be for ages concealed in a species and only be revealed when by a chance crossing of two varieties the factor inhibiting the form is removed. The removing of inhibiting factors is one very likely way in which dominant mutations are revealed.
Explanations of Mutations  Duplicate Factors.—A number of cases are known where there are several independent factors, each of which separately produces the same effect, and each of which is dominant to one and the same kind of recessive factor. In corn, for example, it has been discovered that there is a factor we will call A, which produces yellow color in the kernels. This factor A is dominant over a recessive factor which makes the kernels white. But it has also been discovered that there is another factor in corn, which we will call B, which also produces yellow color in the kernels, and this factor B is also
Fig.58. Illustration of "mutation" produced by inhibiting factors. The column at the left represents a pure breed of White Wyandotte poultry. These chickens are white because of a simple factor for whiteness in them. The column at the right represents a pure breed of White Leghorns. These chickens are white exactly like the Wyandottes but for an entirely different reason. White Leghorns have a factor in them which would make them colored were it not for the fact that there is also in them a factor called an "inhibitor" which prevents the color from showing. All colored breeds of Leghorn, chickens, of which there are several, have not this inhibiting factor which makes White Leghorns white. Whenever a White Wyandotte and a White Leghorn are crossed there is a separation of the inhibiting and the color factors in three out of every sixteen second-generation offspring, and the color comes out that number of times.
dominant over a factor which produces white. Here, therefore, we have two independent, dominant factors which produce yellow corn, whether they are both present together or whether only one is present. In this case it makes no difference in the visible effect whether one factor for yellow or both factors produce the color. The yellow is just the same, and the white can not appear. If, now, any corn-plant having the single factor for yellow, A, is crossed with a plant having a white factor, all the offspring will be yellow, and if two of these offspring are then mated the white color will again reappear in one out of every four progeny. The same will be true if a plant with the single factor for yellow, B, is crossed with a plant having a factor for white. The first generation of offspring of this cross likewise will be yellow and two of these offspring, if crossed, will produce but one white out of every four progeny. It sometimes happens in corn that both factors for yellow color of kernels, A and B, are together in one plant. When such a plant is crossed with a plant having factors for white, only yellow-kerneled offspring are produced in the first generation. But, when two of the first generation are mated, white kerneled offspring appear only in the proportion of one out of every sixteen, which would give it the character of a mutation, since one of the characteristics of new forms which causes men to call them mutations is that they appear seldom.
The reader may learn how this is but a simple outworking of Mendel's Law if he will turn to Figure 35 of this book. There he will find in the second filial generation (bottom row) sixteen guinea pigs in all (9 plus 3 plus 3 plus 1 equals 16). If, now, he will imagine that those are corns instead of guinea pigs, and will substitute in that figure the word "yellow" for the word "short" every place "short" appears, and will substitute the word '"yellow" for the word "colored" every place "colored" appears, and will substitute the word "white" for the words "long" and "uncolored" every place those words appear, he will, by bearing in mind that yellow dominates white, see how simply the proportion fifteen to one arises. It would make no difference whether the two dominant factors for yellow were both in one of the original parents and the two recessive factors for white in the other, or whether one factor for yellow were in each parent and one factor for white in each. In the first and subsequent generations the color results would be the same. The first generation would all be yellow, and the second generation be white once in every sixteen offspring. The significance of the fact that a yellow factor might be in each of the original parents is that the presence of the white factor in the stock would thus be concealed and perhaps unknown, and when it was revealed it would seem to be something new.
In the case described above, there are two independent, dominant factors for the same thing and two independent recessives for the same thing. There is known another case, however, where there are three independent, dominant factors for the same thing and all three dominant to one kind of recessive form. This is the case of wheat (15). It has been found in wheat that there are three independent factors for red color of seeds, all of which are dominant to the same kind of white factor. In such a case recessive white seeds could appear in the second generation of offspring under certain conditions only in one out of every sixty-four. Figure 36 can be made use of in understanding this result.
Fig. 59. Illustration of "mutation" produced by duplicate factors. Left. The two squares at the top represent two parents (male and female) having three pairs of genes in which three similar dominant genes AAA, dominate three similar recessives, aaa. In the male are all the dominant genes, in the female all the recessives. From a mating of these parents only offspring showing the dominant trait will appear in the first generation. But from an intermating of these offspring an average of one offspring showing the recessive trait will appear in every sixty-four in the second generation. Right. The two squares again represent two parents having in them the same three pairs of genes. But in this case the male has only two of the dominant genes, AA, with one recessive, a, and the female has only two recessive genes, aa, with one dominant, A, the result being that male and female parents look alike. Yet the same results will follow in the first and second generation of offspring as when the original male parent carried all the dominant, and the female all the recessive factors. Since the existence of no recessive trait was to be seen in the original parents, its appearance in one of every sixty-four second generation offspring would seem to be the coming forth of some new thing.
Such white-seeded plants, when they appeared, would be of the nature of mutations. They would appear unexpectedly and very seldom, and would seem to be new. Yet they would be old, held in concealment by three factors, any one of which alone is able to conceal it.155 (See also Fig. 59.)
155 The case of wheat here described differs from the case of corn described above in that the redness of the wheat seeds differs according to the number of factors present. If one factor for red is present there is a certain depth of redness. If two factors for red are present there is a deeper redness, and if three are present still deeper redness. The principle, however, remains the same.
No actual cases have yet been discovered in any species where there are more than three factors for the same thing, all dominant to one recessive factor. However, it would not be surprising if such should be discovered. Mendelian students have only begun to scratch the surface of the heredity of each individual plant and animal species. It is not at all unlikely that six, eight, and even ten duplicate factors, such as have been described above, exist in some species, and each of these factors is capable of dominating and concealing one and the same old, recessive form. It has been calculated on the basis of Mendel's Law that if there were four duplicate factors in a species and but one kind of recessive to them all, that recessive could appear but once in 256 times. Figure 37 can be used for the understanding of this result. It has been calculated that if there were five duplicate factors and but one kind of recessive, the recessive could appear but once in 1,024 times; that if there were six duplicate factors and one recessive, that recessive could appear but once in 4,096 times; if seven duplicate factors, once in 16,384 times; if eight, once in 65,536 times; if ten, once in 16,777,216 times. Surely, if a form should arise but once in 16,777,216 individuals, men would think they were justified in saying that a truly new form had arisen. Yet it would not necessarily be new at all. It is well to quote here one of the leading students of Mendelism, who has come to realize that no matter how seldom a variety may appear it is not necessarily new.
Professor Jones of Yale says, "On account of the great complexity which can easily occur in Mendelian phenomenon, it must be emphasized strongly that the numbers in which new forms appear, however, few they may be, is no proof that they are mutations." (10). Prof. Lotsy, the Dutch botanist, says, "Knowing how difficult it is to show, that a given form is free from recessives, we must disqualify, a priori, all claims of having proved the existence of mutations based on the demonstration that a certain form has thrown recessives no matter in how feeble proportions" (II)
Explanation of Mutations  Linkage.—Thus far we have considered mutation phenomena which have had their basis entirely in the actions of the factors (genes) themselves. There is, however, another highly important and very likely cause of mutation phenomena, one which has its basis in the way factors are often combined with one another in heredity. This is called "linkage." It has been discovered that some factors do not behave like free and independent units, each one able to go its own way always, independent of all other factors. Some factors behave as if they were tied or linked together with another factor and are limited in their freedom by what that other factor does. In the fruit-fly, for instance, there is a factor which produces black color in the fty, and another factor which produces "vestigial" shape of wings. These two factors, one for black and the other for "vestigial" wings, always tend to stay together in heredity, so that a fly that is black also usually has vestigial wings (12). Again, in the same species, there is a factor which produces white eyes, and also a factor which produces yellow body color. These two factors always tend to stay together in heredity, so that a fly with white eyes has also usually a yellow body. Sometimes, however, these factors which are linked together, separate. The tie is broken, and the fly with white eyes is produced without having a yellow body. In the case of some species which have been very closely studied the exact percentage of times when the linkage between certain associated factors is broken, or when there is a "cross-over" as it is called, has been learned. The percentage is very regular and evidently follows a definite law.156
Thus far in our discussion of "linkage" little has been disclosed to the reader which can explain mutations. This, however, will appear when it is realized that sometimes in species factors for certain visible characters are linked with inhibiting or lethal factors. A lethal factor is one whose effect is to prevent the individual into which it comes from being formed, or of killing it immediately when it is formed. In the fruit-fly they are known to be exceedingly numerous. Let the reader at this point consider what opportunity a factor for a certain visible character which was tied up with a lethal factor would ever have of expressing itself. It could never express itself as long as it was linked with the lethal, for the reason that the lethal would prevent the organism from being born.
As a concrete example let us take the white-eye mutation in fruit-flies. Imagine that the factor which produces white eyes in this species is closely linked with a lethal factor. Like Mary's lamb, wherever that factor for white-eyes goes, the lethal factor is also sure to go. What is the result? Whitened flies never appear, because the lethal that goes with it prevents every whitened fly from being born. When, however, might white-eyed flies appear? Answer—whenever the linkage between the factor for white eyes and the lethal factor connected with it is broken and the factor for white eyes comes into an offspring alone. (Fig. 60.)
We have in this modification of Mendel's Law known as "linkage" and "cross-over," as we have already said, one of the most important, if not the chief of all the possible explanations of the rare appearance of apparently new forms. Some mutations appear more often, some less. A simple and satisfactory explanation is that, as is known to be the case, some of these visible forms are very closely tied up with lethal factors and the linkage between the factors producing those visible forms and the lethal factors is seldom broken. Sometimes, however, the tie is broken. "Crossing over" takes place in a chromosome in the right spot, and the visible form is enabled to appear as a new character. The very great importance of linkage as an explanation of mutations is apparent from the following statements. Conklin says, "If recessive factors are linked with a lethal they can not come to expres-
156 Any late book on genetics will explain the germinal mechanism underlying the phenomenon of "linkage" and "cross-overs."
sion, for recessives appear only when mated with other recessives. But if 'crossing over' should take place in such a way as to break the linkage between the lethal and the recessive factors, the latter would, when homozygous, come to expression as ordinary Mendelian recessives" (5). Jones says, "By a crossing-over a lethal factor may be gotten out of one chromosome, and a few pure-breeding individuals may appear. In this way new types may be brought to light, the occurrence of which is similar in every way to the manner in which many mutations in the organism are found to occur" (10). So important are cross-overs as a means of explaining "mutations" that geneticists have wondered whether "all mutations may not be due to crossing over" (12). It is certainly true that it may offer the explanation of a vast number of them.
Fig. 60. Illustration of a "mutation" produced by a cross-over. Number 1 above stands between a single pair of mated chromosomes, one of which, the black (marked A) came from the father, the other of which, the white (marked B) came from the mother. Each of these chromosomes is passed on to the offspring either whole or with parts interchanged. (See No. 4.) The white circles represent genes or factors, which are located on the chromosomes arranged in a series from one end to the other. A single chromosome may have thousands of these factors, for they are exceedingly small. The white circles marked X and Y are two factors close together. Circle X represents a factor for producing some visible character which man has never seen. That factor was put there by the Creator. Circle Y represents a lethal factor of some other kind, which, by its close association with X, prevents X from visible manifestation as long as chromosome A remains intact. When, however, as may happen in germ-cell formation, X and Y becomes separated by a crossing over (See No. 2, 3, 4) and the factors X and Y go into different germ cells, factor X is able to manifest itself in the individual that it goes into. Thus an apparently new form of the species appears to man, although the factor which produced it was creation old.
(AS IS OFTEN SAID BY US WITH "DIFFERENT" WHATEVERS IN PEOPLE - BROTHERS, SISTERS, AND SO FORTH, "IT'S IN THE GENES" - REMEMBER MY EXAMPLE OF A SON 6' 8" AT AGE 16, TO A DAD ABOUT 5' 4" AND AND A MOM ABOUT 5' - Keith Hunt)
Explanation of Mutations  Physical or Chemical Variations in Gene Structure. The genes (factors) in the chromosomes, being physical things, must have some molecular shape. What the shape of any gene is no one knows. Different genes may have different shapes. But it may be that a gene is of such a shape or of such chemisty that it can be turned over or about in its place in such a way as to lie in different positions at different times, and it may be that each new position produces a different visible effect in the adult organism. A gene may be imagined like a child's toy-block, a thing which may lie on any one of six sides. Each different position, in the case of a gene, may produce a different result. To mention a definite case, there is a series of eleven eye-colors in the fruit-fly, that is to say, there are eleven eye-color changes which have occurred, which seem to be due to changes in a single gene located in one spot in the first chromosome, the spot being called the "white-locus." These color-changes range from deep red to pure white. They are red, coral, blood, cherry, eosin, apricot, ivory, tinge, buff, ecru, white. The appearance of these eleven different eye colors at different times can be explained as due to a single gene which produces different colors in the eye depending on the position in which the gene lies. If this gene is shaped like a polygon having eleven sides, each side being able to produce a different effect as the polygon is turned, we have an analogy that can explain very well the changes in eye color that have occurred in the fruit-fly from changes known to be at the white locus. Something causes the gene there to turn over, and when it does a new color appears. It can readably be seen, however, that the causing of mutations by the turning about of a gene is not adding something new to the world any more than it is adding something new if a toy is turned about in different ways. That the above is another possible explanation of mutations is borne out by the statement of Morgan. "There is also another fact that the study of the mutation process has brought to our attention. The same mutation may occur again and again. A list of these recurrent mutations is given elsewhere. The appearance of the same mutant indicates that we are dealing with a specific and orderly process. Its recurrence recalls Galton's famous analogy of the polygon. Each change corresponds to a new stable position (perhaps in a chemical sense) of the gene. Tempting as is the comparison, we must remember that, as yet, we have almost no evidence as to the real nature of the mutation process" (12).
Something must also be said about the very remarkable production of mutations by the use of X-rays and radium rays. Under the leadership of H. J. Miller of Texas University fruit-
flies and other species of animals and plants have been subjected to these rays, and mutation phenomena have been produced with a far greater frequency than under normal conditions. Exactly what causes the mutations to occur under these rays is not certainly known. It is known that the rays break up the chromosomes, and this breaking up of the chromosomes may release genes for visible characters from lethal connections. The altering of the genes in the manner described in the preceding paragraph is another thing that may occur. But whatever be the explanation of the effect of X-ray and radium rays, the mutations produced by them are not essentially different from those that occur less frequently under normal conditions. In fruit-flies old mutant forms long familiar are produced under X-raying over and over again. A few new mutant forms have been produced, but these may also occur under natural conditions. Prof. M. Drummond of Glasgow University has said, "Miller has shown that when eggs of normal specimens of Drosophila are subjected to X-ray radiation, they give rise to 'mutations' of the same kind as some of those which turn up in Morgan's cultures." Miller himself has said the same thing.
It is obvious from the foregoing that there is no necessity on the basis of the evidence for saying any mutant form is "new" in the strict sense of that word. Some very prominent authorities among evolutionists see this and admit it. Jones says, "As used, the term mutation is given to heritable variations which occur in such a way that no clear reason for their appearance is known. More and more characters, once considered mutations, are now known to be the results of a normal working of a definite mechanism. All mutations may ultimately be understood as the result of an orderly process" (10).
What one leading evolutionist has had to say about mutations being truly new additions to the world should be told. This is Dr. J. P. Lotsy, of the University of Leyden (also director of the Holland Government Herbarium, and Secretary of the International Association of Botanists). So convinced was Lotsy that the revealing of hidden forms by crossing and not the origination of genuinely new forms by a mysterious, creative process is the cause of mutation phenomena, that he put his ideas into a book called Evolution by Means, of Hybridisation. One of the chief things Lotsy does in his book is to show that those who argue that mutations are something genuinely new do not show that the conditions are fulfilled which would prove without a doubt that mutations are the production of new things. To establish clearly that a genuinely new form had come into the world by "mutation," Lotsy says that it would be necessary to show without any question that the race or stock out of which an apparently new form came did not contain that form previously in a hidden condition. The analogy Lotsy uses is a good one. He said a man might claim that he had gotten silver out of nickel by a change in the element nickel, and would prove it by showing the silver. His proof, Lotsy said, would be lacking in certainty until the man had first proved that the nickel was pure and absolutely did not contain any silver to begin with. This, Lotsy says, is what those who claim mutations are genuinely new things fail to do. They fail to show that the stocks or races out of which new forms came did not contain them already. He says, "Mendelism could show us that such a mutation (i. e. something new added) had taken place if we were sure—it is the old difficulty again—of the specific purity of the material from which the supposed mutants arose. Does the classic subject of mutation, Oenothera Lamarckiana (Evening Primrose) give us proof of the existence of such mutations? The answer is an unconditional: 'No'" (11). He then goes on to say that getting "mutants" out of the Evening Primrose, on which the theory of evolution by mutation was first based by de Vries, is "comparable to the bringing to light the presence of silver in a lead-ore containing silver." In other words, every mutant form from the Evening Primrose was already present in the species. Lotsy then further states that he can not accept any case of reported mutation as a genuine case because in no such case has it been proved satisfactorily that the stock from which the new form rose 'was pure' to start with. After specifying a certain test for purity which any breed of animals or strain of plants must be able to stand before a new form can truly be said to have arisen from it by mutation, Lotsy says, "As far as I am aware, no pretended case of mutation can stand this test" (11). Perfect purity is an absolute essential in the proof that a genuine mutation has occurred, and in no case where a mutation has occurred has perfect purity beforehand been established.
Old forms being brought out by crossing is the simplest explanation of all mutation phenomena. Evolutionists as a whole, however, refuse to accept it. The reason has already been suggested. Such an explanation is a denial of evolution.
This is acknowledged by Conklin when he says, "Lotsy maintains that all mutations arise in this way (by crossing). But such an explanation does not account for the existence of the original 'elementary species,' and if they be referred to still earlier crossings it is evident that we only put off the explanation to a more remote period" (5). Of like tenor are the words of Professor Coulter of Chicago University. He says, "Evolution through 'hybridization' is a theory that was suggested by Weismann some decades ago, and has recently been developed and championed by Lotsy . . . While there is little question that natural hybridization takes place and may be a real factor in producing new varieties, at the same time this theory is not satisfactory as a 'complete' explanation of evolution. It seems rather obvious that, although hybridization can multiply variations through crossing forms that are already different from each other, it can never account for the 'original' differences" (6).
And clearest of all are the words of Castle, "Some refer all multiplicity of varieties to past hybridization of species genetically different, but this is only referring to a more remote period the genetic changes which are involved in the origin of the hypothetical species themselves. The genetic changes must have occurred sometime if related species really had a common orgin as we, under the Darwinian theory, suppose" (4) :157 One evolutionist, Gates, complainingly calls the explanation of new forms by crossing a "bogey" (7).
Evolutionists can not prove by science that any mutant form is a genuinely new "creation," nor can believers in the Bible prove that any particular form is creation old. Evolutionists and creationists both must hold their contrary views purely as matters of faith. There are, however, positive indications that mutant forms called by the evolutionists "new additions" to the world are not modern additions by any means.
First, in this connection, is the fact that nearly every mutation, which has been observed to occur in the fruit-fly in Morgan's laboratories has occurred more than once. The mutation called "white-eye" has occurred 25 times; that called "vestigial" (wing) 6 times; that called "eyeless" 2 times; that called "ebony" 10 times; that called "bar-eye" 2 times; that called "pink" (eye) 11 times; that called "vermilion" (eye) 12 times; that called "dachs" (legs) 2 times (12). These are typical examples of the occurrence of all mutations in this species. "The reappearance of the same mutant," says Morgan, "indicates that we are dealing with a specific and orderly process" (12). He also says, "We must remember that the majority of mutants we find are not new, but have probably been rejected many times by natural selection, for some of the same mutants appear over and over again in our cultures. New ones, too, are continually appearing—new in the sense that we have never seen them before. These, too, have no doubt occurred elsewhere" (12). Does not this repeated appearance of exactly the same form in a species indicate that old things are involved rather than that new things are created each time they appear?
Second, in this connection, is the fact that some mutations which have occurred in modern times and are said to be "new" are known to be hundreds of years old. Prof. Lotsy uses as one of his proofs that mutations are not new the case of a variety of petunia with green-rimmed petals which was observed to arise in 1830 in England and arose again in 1914 in his own garden (11). How many times that mutant form arose unnoticed no one knows. One of the most talked-of mutations of so-called new things in animals is the polled or hornless condition in cattle, which is known to be due to a Mendelian factor. This mutation is very often cited as one of the instances of "new" forms arising by mutation. Professor W. M. Goldsmith (8) of Indiana University says, "The present critic (Goldsmith) would prefer not to deceive his readers into believing that new characters are not arising de novo from unexplainable sources. This sudden appearance in plants and animals of new characters which breed true is called a MUTA-
157 We find this kind of argument all through the evolutionary discussion. Evolution must be true, therefore there are "faults" in nature's arrangements of the geological layers, and "falsifications" in the way nature develops embryos, etc. The theory of evolution is a bald assumption, and natural facts must fit the theory or so much the worse for the facts.
TION and is held by many of the most eminent living scientists to be one of the principal factors which is determining the direction of evolution. Numerous examples of mutation may be found by referring to the index of any recent book dealing with the various problems of Evolution, Genetics and Eugenics. Among the classical examples might be cited the hornless 'Herefords' (1889)." Yet the Greek historian Herodotus (425 B. C), tells us that the cattle of the ancient Scythians were hornless (16). Hence we know the factor for poll or hornlessness was in existence five hundred years before the time of Christ. A fact worth noticing is that the same mutant forms which have appeared in the fruit-flies with which Morgan experimented appeared also in the same, species in the experiments of other men in other parts of the world, although the flies these men have used were not procured from Morgan but were gathered independently in their own localities. The evolutionists explain this condition by saying that the original "creations" of the factors for those mutant forms must have occurred far enough back in the past for the factors to become multiplied and scattered abroad in the germ cells of the species everywhere. How old the factors must be for this to be true we can not say. They must be quite old, to say the least. But is it not a peculiar kind of faith which can believe that factors can be as old as that and yet be sure, as all evolutionists claim to be, that God did not create those factors and put them in the species by an act of special creation as the Scriptures declare?
(YES AS TWO WRITERS OF THE MODERN BOOK CALLED THEIR BOOK: "I DON'T HAVE ENOUGH FAITH TO BE AN ATHEIST" - Keith Hunt)
Modern genetical knowledge gives the following picture of the make-up of the germ or "seed" (to use the Biblical expression), of every "kind" which God created. Each species has a set of chromosomes of a number that is constant (except when such temporal things as non-disjunction and polyploidy occur). These sets of chromosomes are the bearers of the genes, which are in some species exceedingly numerous: The fruit-fly Drosophila Melanogaster, with a set of four chromosomes, is estimated to have five thousand genes. Man, with a set of twenty-four chromosomes, has perhaps 100,000 genes, each one able to affect in some way the size of the human body, the shape of the skull, the texture of skin, slant of eye, color of hair and so on.
(REMEMBER THIS BOOK WAS LAST PUBLISHED IN 1958. TODAY THE SCIENTISTS HAVE PROVED THE HUMAN HAS, TO THIER ASTONISHMENT, ONLY 30,000 GENES; BUT HOW THOSE GENES TOGETHER WITH CELL FORMATION, FIT TOGETHER MAKE A HUMAN, A HUMAN. MANY INSECTS AND ANIMALS MAY WELL HAVE AS MANY GENES AS THE HUMAN; BUT NOW SCIENCE KNOWS THERE IS MUCH MORE TO HOW GENES, CELLS, AND DNA, FIT TOGETHER TO MAKE THE HUMAN WAY ABOVE ANY ANIMAL OR INSECT - Keith Hunt)
The genes were placed in the species by the Creator at creation, together with a definite mechanism or orderly process by which they could at different times reveal their effects. With the information about genes which modern discovery has given, the color of Adam and Eve can be surmised. Judging from what is known of "multiple factors" for color in wheat, corn, flies and other animals, there are also multiple factors for color of skin in man-—-many factors for red, black, yellow, white, and these factors have become grouped together in the various races. If there are, as is, practically certain,, multiple factors for color of skin in man, and if Adam and Eve were mulattos—a shade a mixture of black, white, red, and yellow —it is easy for geneticists to see how their color genes could become grouped and selected by ….influences so as to form the various colors of the races.
To sum the whole matter up we may say that "mutation" is nothing but the revelation of types within species provided for by the Creator in His acts of special creation.
Babcock, E. B., and Clausen, R. E., Genetics in Relation to Agriculture, 1927, pages 239, 246, 251.
Bailey, L. H., and Gilbert, A. W., Plant Breeding, 1917, pages 91, 90.
Burbank, L., His Methods and Discoveries, 1914, Vol. II, page 97.
Castle, W. E., Genetics and Eugenics, 1926, pages 265-266.
Conklin, E. G., Heredity and Environment, 1925, pages 280, 277, 279.
Coulter, M. E., Outline of Genetics, 1923, page 10.
Gates, R. R., Mutations and Evolution, 1921, pages 22, 74.
Goldsmith, W. W., Evolution and Christianity, 1925, page 61.
Jennings, H. S., Creation by Evolution (Mason), 1928, page 23.
Jones, D. F., Genetics in Plant and Animal Improvement, 1925, pages 75; 169-170.
Lotsy, J. P., Evolution by Means of Hybridisation, 1916. pages 38, 31, 38, 55.
Morgan, T. H., The Genetics of Drosophila, 1925, pages 217-239; 28-32; 23-24. Evolution and Genetics, 1925, pages 111-113; Theory of the Gene, 1926, pages 66, 91, 66; Yale Review, April, 1928.
Newmann, H. H., Readings in Evolution, Genetics, and Eugenics, 1921, page 364.
Sinnott, E. W., and Dunn, L. C, Principles of Genetics, 1925, pages 32, 303, 95, 23, 104, 32.
Walker H. E., Genetics, 1922, page 186.
Herodotus, Book IV—29 (Translation by Henry Cary, 1899).
WOW…THAT WAS A LARGE ONE TO SCAN AND EDIT AND GET READY TO UPLOAD; BUT IT'S DONE.
WE AGAIN HAVE TO LAUGH AT THE TEACHING OF EVOLUTION. WE HAVE VARIETIES IN NEARLY ALL SPECIES; BUT DOGS ARE STILL DOGS, CATS ARE STILL CATS, HORSES ARE STILL HORSES; AND ETC. AND HORSES NEVER THINK OF BREEDING WITH COWS AND SO ETC. ON THAT AGAIN.
IF EVOLUTION IS AN EVER ONGOING STATE, AND THINGS ARE SUPPOSED TO ADAPT TO CLIMATE AND WHATEVER, WHY HAS NOT THE ESKIMO ADAPTED TO GROWING LONG HAIR OVER THEIR BODY TO PROTECT FROM THE COLD?
WHY DID EVOLUTION HAVE THE MONARCH BUTTERFLY FLYING HUNDREDS AND THOUSANDS OF MILES TO MEXICO FOR THE WINTER? IF IT COULD LIVE WHERE IT WAS BORN, WHY BOTHER EVOLVING TO GO TO MEXICO? AND HOW DID EVOLUTION FIGURE THAT ONE OUT; HOW TO TRAVEL THERE?
WHY DID THE CATERPILLAR BOTHER TO EVOLVE INTO A BUTTERFLY? IT COULD JUST LIVE AND EAT AWAY ON LEAVES FOR ITS LIFETIME. AND HOW DID EVOLUTION FIGURE OUT IN ADVANCE ALL THE STAGES OF RE-EVOLVING INTO A BUTTERFLY?
TRULY THE BIBLE STATES: "ONLY THE FOOL HAS SAID IN HIS HEART THERE IS NO GOD."