Mutations are oft quoted by evolutionists as the means by which evolution occurred.Clearly, natural selection can only work on what is already present and so has long been recognised as a little bit of a blind alley in the evolutionary hypothesis.
NEW genetic information is essential to the process if the trillions of different changes interweaving across each and every life form on the planet have modified to the more complex from simpler organisms.
The sheer numbers of changes alone require immense amounts of faith.
However, when it is clear that all else has failed, evolutionist apologists turn to the idea that these changes MUST have taken place through mutations.
Unfortunately, these are almost always negative and damage the basic organism and in the few cases where there is a perceived advantage, it is only accidental and often as much of a negative as it is possible to be.
It has been weakly argued that sickle cell anaemia sufferers do not get malaria - and so the mutation has been advantageous. So you get a disease which may well kill you as a by-product which accidentally protects from malaria. Not really my definition of 'advantageous'.
The real argument though is even more damaging to the evolutionist - mutations never create new genetic material; they never add new information to the genome.
One might also ask just how mutations are meant to plan ahead? How does a system work 200, 100 or even 10 mutational stages ahead to plan for an eye, kidney etc. Every mutation must leave the organism working perfectly and worse, logically, at all times. When it does not, that faux ami to the evolutionist, natural selection, kicks in and weeds out the failure!
All changes work only within the finite, genetic parameters of the organism.
E Mailed comment: "Of course sickle-cell anaemia sufferers don't get malaria. The blood is so messed up that even the mosquitos won't touch it. That's what I was taught at university anyway..."
LINK: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are-mutations-the-engine
