Beneficial Mutations Don’t Add Genetic Complexity

The ratio of deleterious beneficial mutations to beneficial mutations is somewhere between 100,000:1 and 1,000,000:1. There are up to a million harmful mutations for every good mutation. The problem this creates for evolutionary time-frames, when you need many beneficial mutations to accumulate quickly, is insurmountable on its own.

But there is another problem evolution faces that compounds the size of this problem and it is this: Not a single one of those beneficial mutations can add any significant genetic complexity to an organism! Let me explain.

The majority of mutations fall into two basic classes. They will either jam an existing  genetic signal in the “off” or “on” positions or duplicate it. That’s all, nothing more, nothing less. This is due to the receptor being removed and no longer responding to its signalling molecules. While this may at times be useful, it does not support the assumption that complex biochemical genetics has arisen via evolution. It is clearly a loss of information from the original genetic instruction. The vast majority of these mutations create dysfunction. In extremely rare situations they can benefit an organism. But this is not a mechanism that can create men and women out of a single cell.

For over 100 years, an army of scientists have searched diligently for any mutations that have added beneficial complexity to a genome. Yet, in all of the world’s scientific literature there is not yet a single, clear cut example of a mutation actually adding extra beneficial genetic complexity to an organism. Over and over again I have read in my background study for this essay that their rarity precludes their scientific study. Dr Jerry Bergman’s extensive literature review in 2005 found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but only 186 included the term “beneficial mutation”, about 4 in every 10,000. Of those 186 “beneficial mutations” he found not a single one that unambiguously created new, more complex genetic information. For evolution to exist, it must continually create vast amounts of new genetic information of a higher order, but there is no observable scientific evidence to that effect.

So how can a mutation be beneficial without adding genetic information?

The often quoted examples of beneficial mutations such as adaptive immunity, nucleotide re-combination, antibiotic resistance in bacteria, lactose tolerance in Europeans, resistance to HIV, and sickle-cell anaemia all fail to meet the requirements of an “increasing genetic complexity” mutation. These examples and all other examples of mutation-enhanced function quoted in the scientific literature involve loss, jamming or mere duplication of genetic information. No novel, more complex genetic information has been added to those organisms. Beneficial mutations are therefore like scratches on a car that accidently make it more aerodynamic, or the same car losing a part so it is lighter and can go faster. The complete lack of examples is strong testimony against the validity of the prime axiom of evolution; that increasing genetic complexity is entirely due to mutational build up..

And this makes perfect sense as informational copying errors such as the different types of mutations that we know of: Point mutations, duplications, omissions, deletions, insertions, trans-locations and inversions can never increase the quality of the original information. This is especially the case as the human genome can carry several different messages inside the same single block of DNA! Our DNA is a multi-dimensional, multi-linguistic school of languages, something we humans will never achieve. Copying errors can never improve an encyclopaedia, a computer code or an instruction manual. DNA is all of these combined, and much, much more.

Evolutionary theory needs a high rate of beneficial mutations and for those mutations to create new information over time. Both of these assumptions are clearly false. There are virtually no beneficial mutations, those that exist create no significant new information. There is also not enough time for them to accumulate before the multitude to harmful mutations destroy the species in the meantime. The prime axiom of evolution; that mutations lead to upward genetic progression, is therefore a lie.

The Death of Western Culture






Kevin Davis

Persecution Begins On Australian University Campuses








Kevin Davis


Meet Uncle Willy: A Man Raised From The Dead

This experience took place in the wild jungles of Papua New Guinea. The year was 1993 and I was 32 years old. I had been asked to go into one of the most remote valleys in the Milne Bay Provence to do some lecturing at three affiliated churches. I spoke 59 times in 19 days. They worked me like a dog!

Denewa Valley is about 30 km long, with a branch valley to the south leading to the province’s highest mountain, Mt Simpson. That’s where you will find it on Google Maps. The only way in is by foot and it takes two days to get to the top of the valley. That’s a story in itself. I was only the 15th European ever to venture into the valley and the first to enter via the ridge as the river was flooded.

After three grueling weeks I was exhausted and ready to leave the valley. On the last night several villages came together and we had a Moo Moo, where a pig was slaughtered and we all feasted. That night I interviewed eighty-something year old Uncle Willy while many listened in to his now famous story. Between his recollections and the stories supplied by my friend and student, Robin, this is what happened:

Many years before an Anglican priest had entered the valley and shared a watered down version of the gospel of Jesus Christ. Some had converted and a small Anglican Mission was established. However, syncretic religion had crept into the valley as well and was locally called the Cargo Cult. This belief system held that everything in the Bible was within 50 km of Denewa Valley. For a people having little experience of the outside world this was understandable. They also held to an extremely liberal view of sexuality that had caused great pain and suffering to family life and children.

A few years earlier a young man (lets call him George) from the valley traveled to Port Moresby for work and heard the true gospel of salvation in Christ. He then hurried back to the valley and began sharing the good news. A small church was established and demonic influence began to be challenged for the first time. But there was much resistance from both local shamanism and the Cargo Cult. One of the converts was a young and very spiritually sensitive man by the name of Robin.

One day one of the men from the highest village was working in his field up on a high slope when he suddenly took ill and died. His name was Willy. These people know death much better than we westerners. When someone dies, they know they are dead. Willy head been a porter for the Australians during World War Two and told me several hair-raising stories of his times whit the Aussies. Again, they are for another time.

Immediately word echoed out across the valley and a crowd gathered outside the hut where he lay. Grieving and burial is completed in hours up in the tropics, and the grieving is like nothing you have ever witnessed before in your life. I was not present at the grieving of Uncle Willy, but was present in the background on the Trobriand Islands some time later when 3-400 people were grieving the sudden death of the Paramount Chiefs nephew. Its a truly deafening dusty and scary experience. Once again that is material for another story.

About an hour after the death, a crowd had arrived at the hut and the grieving began. In the middle of the riotous, crazy mayhem of the hundred or so villagers grieving for their lost friend and family member, Robin and George arrived at the hut. The noise of the wailing and screaming was deafening. They pushed their way to the hut and managed somehow to get to the body. They began to pray, asking Jesus what they should do. After a few minutes George said to Robin that he just saw a movie of Uncle Willy coming back down a set of stairs into the hut. Was it a message that they were to pray for Willy to come back. Being of simple faith they did just that. About five minutes later, and out of the blue, Willy sat straight up and called fro a glass of water as he was extremely thirsty!

The Jet-engine like roar of the grieving process stopped in its tracks. There was dead silence for a whole minute as everyone took stock of what should not be happening. Into that silence Geoge jumped up and explained to the Hundred or so people present that they had just prayed to Jesus for Willy to come back and he had. He then preached the good news of salvation through Christ. They all joined on the spot. By the end of the day some 300 people from the valley had become believers in Jesus.

Three new village churches were established that day. These were the three I visited while in the valley. A third of my students at the small thatched-roofed Bible school I was running in Alatou were from the valley, sponsored by Two Singaporeian SIL translators who were teaching the Denewa people how to read their own language.

Willy told me that he thought he was asleep. While asleep he found himself in the middle of a large grassy field. On both sides stood an army charging toward him. He knew each side wanted him but was helplessly stuck in the middle waiting to see which side would reach him first. The he woke up and asked for water.

The telling of the story once again around the fire after feasting on roast pig was probably the umpteenth time the people of the valley had heard the story, but they loved each telling just as much as the last. It was the transformative event of their lives.

This is a true story. I lived it. I was there. I met the eyewitnesses and Robin was my student. They estimated Willy had been dead about two hours. Evidence doesn’t get much stronger than that.

Kevin Davis

Quotes From Leading Geneticists Worried About Evolution

Below are a series of quotes from leading human geneticists, including the only geneticist to have ever won a Noble Prize, on the devastating implications of the ever-increasing mutational load on the future of humanity. Their admissions are candid, with one even asking why we have not died out a 100 times over with our current rate of skyrocketing mutational load. These quote are clear evidence of a human species in decline, not evolutionary advancement.

Herman Muller    (Nobel Laureate)


Herman Muller

…an asexual population incorporates a kind of ratchet mechanism, such that…lines become more loaded with mutations. (From the article: The relation of recombination to mutational advance. Mutation Research 1:2-9) We now know that the massive number of mutations, the near-neutral nature of most of them, the presence of Y chromosomes in men, mitochondria in all humans, and the presence of large linkage blocks create the same ratchet for all sexually reproducing populations.

James Neel  (American national medal of science for biological research)


(From the article: The rate with which spontaneous mutation alters the electrophoretic mobility of polypeptides. PNAS 83:389-393) This statement was made on the assumption of 30 mutations per generation.  We now know it is at least 10 times that figure.

Alexy Kondrashov (Professor of evolutionary genetics, University of Michigan)

“Accumulation of VSDM’s (very slightly deleterious mutations) in a linage…acts like a time bomb…the existence of vertebrate lineages should be limited to 106-107 generations. (From the article: Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations: Why have we not died 100 times over? Journal of Theoretical Biology 175:583-594) Confessions don’t come much better than this. He is clearly admitting we are on an exponential biological decay curve leading to the extinction of all vertebrates in 100,000 to 1,000,000 generations.


Our results provide no evidence for the existence of a threshold population size beyond which a population is completely invulnerable to a mutational meltdown. (Mutation accumulation and the extinction of small populations. The American Naturalist 146:489-518) This reference is to all current endangered species, but admission is made that it is an issue for all populations.

Noel Howell

“We should increase our attention to the broader question of how (or whether) organisms can tolerate, in the sense of evolution, a genetic system with such a high mutational burden.” (From the article: Evolution of Human DNA. How rapid does the human mitochondrial genome evolve? American Journal of Human Genetics 59:501-509)  Howell was only looking at the mutation rate inside human mitochondria when he made this statement, which has a mutation rate of only one per person per generation! This statement ignores all other types of mutations.

James Crow (Professor Emeritus of Genetics, University of Wisconsin)

“It seems clear that for the past few centuries harmful mutations have been accumulating…the decrease in viability from mutation accumulation is some 1-2% per generation, “I do regard mutation accumulation as a problem. It is something like the population bomb, but it has a much longer fuse.” (From the article: The high spontaneous mutation rate: is it a health risk? PNAS 94:8380-8386) Another great confession. Without using the term, he is admitting genetic entropy.

Fred Hoyle (Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University)

“When the environment is not fixed there is a slow genetic erosion, however, which natural selection cannot prevent.” (From the article: Mathematics of Evolution. 1999) Hoyle attacked neo-Darwinian evolution with the logic of physics. As a committed atheist, he, along with Francis Crick, believed the origin of DNA had to be alien panspermia.


“…deleterious mutation rates appear to be so high in humans and our close relatives that it is doubtful that such species could survive…” (From the article: High genomic deleterious mutation rates in humanoids. Nature 397:344-347) This statement was made in reference to protein coding regions only, which is some 3% of our genome. What about the rest, where 80% of all mutations occur?


“We find the accumulation of new mildly deleterious mutations fundamentally alters the scaling of extinction time, lowering the genetic effective size to such a degree that even large meta-populations may be at risk of extinction.”(From the article: Meta-population extinction caused by mutation accumulation. PNAS 98: 2928-2933). This research paper is particularly interesting, and honestly admitting to genetic entropy.

Michael Lynch

“Without a reduction in the germline transmission of deleterious mutations, the mean phenotypes of the residents in the industrialized nations are likely to be rather different in just two or three centuries.” (From the article: Rate, molecular spectrum and consequences of human mutations. PNAS 107 (3): 961-968). This dramatic decline is due to modern medicine suppressing the natural selection of most human major mutations. Modern medicine is actually accelerating genetic entropy.

Kevin Davis

How Many Mutations Are Accumulating Each Generation?

Exactly how many deleterious mutations are accumulating inside humanity each generation? To put this another way, at what rate is the mutational load increasing? How quickly are the deleterious mutations accumulating in our genomes over time, and is this accumulation a danger to our future existence?

Let’s start by stating that mutation rates affect different species differently. Single-celled asexually reproducing organisms tend to have far lower genetic complexity so obviously experience fewer mutations per individual. E. coli has 4.8 million nucleotides while humans have 3 billion. E. coli is a single cell while we have between 50 and 100 trillion cells. Natural selection is also extremely severe in these “simple” species as every single cell is independently subject to natural selection after every single cell division.

Therefore mutations are a much larger problem in sexually reproducing larger species of trillions of cells and billions of reproductive cells which divide many times before reproduction. The potential for something to go wrong rises exponentially with time. In addition, larger sexually reproducing organisms have a greater accumulation of mutations in the male reproductive cells before reproduction, because of their Y chromosome. Mutations double every 16.5 years in human males as they age, resulting in 76% of all mutations coming down through the paternal line.

Many larger animal species have the additional problem of a relatively low population size with a highly complex genome. Humans have a different problem; a large population but a very low reproductive rate. Finally, the larger the species, the smaller overall effect of each individual mutation on the individual and therefore the less likely it is to be removed via natural selection. In these species, including us, the environment and homeostasis will have a far greater influence on reproduction than natural selection.

The Nobel Prize winning grandfather of modern human genetics, Herman Muller  established in 1950 that a mutational load of 0.3 mutations per individual per generation was the limit of human mutational tolerance. The logic was simple. If we have three children per family, we can only afford one of them to carry a large increase in mutational load, and if all carried mutations at this low level they could easily be selected out. However, if all our children had mutational loads above this level then they could not be eliminated from the human race. Mutations would begin to accumulate in a linear fashion over time. Instead of evolving upward, the human race would be on a one way trip to eventual extinction.

In 1971 fellow Nobel Prize winner, Manfred Eigen, also calculated that the maximum number of mutations allowable for evolution to progress as 1/n, or one per genome. Any figure above this would eventually result in genetic “error catastrophe”, a term he coined. For many years geneticists, such as James Crow have continued to worry about the effect of increasing numbers of deleterious mutations are having on the human population, particularly with the trend toward older parenting.

So, how many mutations per person per generation are we actually producing? Is it still within the confines needed for evolutionary theory to work suggested by Muller? Advanced studies on the human genome have now shown us the true figure. Sadly, we now know that the single point mutations (SNV’s) alone, without even counting the many other types of mutations, are accumulating on average at between 75 and 175 in our reproductive cells per person, per generation!

This is a profound discovery with huge ramifications for the future of humanity. Because this astounding fact is foundational to the evolutionary thesis, I have quoted the following admissions from evolutionary geneticists to these mutation rates in humans:

  1. Michael W. Nachman and Susan L. Crowell, Estimate of the Mutation Rate per Nucleotide in Humans.

The average mutation rate was estimated to be approximately 2.5 x 10(-8) mutations per nucleotide site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation. The authors find this figure hard to reconcile with evolutionary theory and suggest a mutual cancelling out of mutant nucleotides via epistasis.”

  1. Catarina D. Campbell, Evan E. Eichler, Properties and Rates of Germline Mutations in Humans

Recent genome-wide studies of the SNV mutation rate in humans have started to converge. Studies based on whole-genome sequencing and direct estimates of de novo mutations give an average SNV mutation rate of 1.16 × 10−8 mutations per base pair per generation.”

In plain English this estimate is about 30 new SNV’s per person per generation. Table one of their paper gives a mean mutation rate of 96.3 per person per generation. They go on to say that this is a “lower boundary” estimate and that…

Notably, when considering the total number of mutated base pairs between SNVs and CNVs, CNVs account for the vast majority. CNV’s being copy and deletion mutations covering large number of nucleotides. Put together these two sources of mutations represent hundreds of new mutations per generation.”

  1. Neel JV, Satoh C, Goriki K, Fujita M, Takahashi N, Asakawa J, Hazama R, The Rate With Which Spontaneous Mutation Alters the Electrophoretic Mobility of Polypeptides.

The implication, if these exon rates can be generalized, is of approximately equal to 20 nucleotide mutations per gamete per generation. This estimate of the frequency of point mutations does not include small duplications, rearrangements, or deletions resulting from unequal crossing-over, transcription errors, etc.”

  1. Ellie Dolgin, Nature The Real Mutation Rate Revealed, August 29, 2009


Confessions do not come clearer than that, and from the pens of the worlds leading human population geneticists. We are clearly generating an abundance of deleterious mutations, and practically zero beneficial mutations. This has profound implications for anyone who has built their worldview on the assumption that evolutionary theory has slam-dunked all opposing theories of our origins.

Mutations: No Friend of Evolution

The evolutionary prime axiom says that every nucleotide, codon, protein, gene, chromosome, protein molecule, cell, tissue, organ, individual and entire species is the result of random, unguided mutations. But what exactly are mutations? Mutations are accidental copying errors in the DNA and RNA transcription (copying) processes that lead to structural change. There are many different types of mutations. The most common one is called a point mutation which occurs when the processes of cellular transcription to RNA make a single spelling mistake. Other types of mutations include accidental deletions, insertions, duplications, translocations, inversions, conversions and mitochondrial mutations. Contrary to common sense, evolutionary theory assumes these copying mistakes can add genetic complexity to all DNA, turning simple life into sophisticated life. It is the same as assuming copying mistakes in a manual for little red wagons can, over millions of years, produce a space shuttle.

Mutations are very dangerous for any organism and are a major curse in modern medicine. So, in the 1930’s, in an effort to save evolutionary theory from the rediscovery of Mendelian inheritance and a new-found awareness of mutational damage, influential geneticists such as Ronald Fisher, Sewall Wright and John Haldane suggested mutations must fall into a typical bell curve, with half deleterious and half beneficial. Because they believed in the prime axiom, they assumed the deleterious half were then eliminated via natural selection, while the beneficial mutations caused ever upward evolutionary advancement.

Fisher’s knowledge of genetics was rudimentary compared to our own. We now know the real ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations. It is definitely not 50/50. It is hideously skewed toward the deleterious side. By 1979 the famous geneticist Mootoo Kimura no longer even bothered to record any beneficial mutations on graphs in his research papers, showing mutations to be universally deleterious and exponentially more common as their effect diminishes. In 1998 Phillip Gerrish and Richard Lenski estimated the ratio of beneficial mutations to deleterious mutations to be about 1,000,000:1. That figure is not a typo. They believed there was only one single beneficial mutation to about one million deleterious mutations. This is much closer to common sense and light years away from the assumptions held by Ronald Fisher.

A year 2000 research paper by Thomas Bataillon stated “…the net effect of spontaneous mutation is indeed deleterious. Mean decline of the fitness components of MA lines ranged from 0.1% to 1–2% per generation…Fitness erosion seems to be the rule over a broad range of organisms.” Bataillon believed the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations so low as to thwart any actual measurement.

Bataillon and Bailey in 2014 stated that “Direct experimental evidence confirms predictions on the DFE (distribution of fitness effects) of beneficial mutations and favours distributions that are roughly exponential but bounded on the right. (In other words, they agree with Mootoo Kimura. They go on to say…) “The conventional assumption…is that populations are very close to their fitness optimum, and so beneficial mutations are exceedingly rare and can be safely ignored. Thus, in most cases, assumptions of the models do not allow for beneficial fitness effects to be estimated at all.”

We can therefore safely estimate the ratio of deleterious to beneficial mutations at somewhere between 1,000:1 up to 1,000,000:1, and closer to the second figure. For arguments sake let’s be generous to evolution and put it at 100,000:1. Unfortunately you will not find this hard science on popular evolutionary websites. Ronald Fisher’s lovely bell curve turned out to be vastly one-sided, with an exponentially larger number of mutations as they diminish their impact on heritability and effects on the organism. Most of these mutations are the smaller point mutations and are therefore skewed to the central near-neutral zone no-selection zone you see below. This is because the smaller the mutation, the more easily it will slip through the cell’s thirty-plus layers of proof-reading systems.

This 100,000:1 ratio raises a profound problem for evolutionary theory. It leaves species development with both too little material to work with and too little time, even given billions of years.

Let’s go through the figures for a transitional species, our theoretical ancestors. Here are the assumptions:

  1. 300 mutations per individual (more on that figure later), per generation
  2. A 6 year reproductive cycle stretching to a 20 year cycle in early humans, so an average of 10 years.
  3. A ratio of 100,000 deleterious mutations to every beneficial mutation

Given these realistic assumptions it would take an average of 3,000 years for the very first beneficial mutation to appear, at any random location. Most of the time this mutation will be then lost due to drift, noise, epistasis, linkage blocks, epigenetics and a host of other factors discussed further on in this essay. This pushes our time frame out by a factor of ten. It’s actually a factor of 100 but we will once again be generous to evolutionary theory. So then we have to wait 30,000 years for first mutation to stick. Now the second mutation could be anywhere, no one and nothing determines where in the 3 billion-nucleotide genome it will occur. So, in 60,000 years you could get your second mutation at opposite ends of the genome! But you want them to occur next to each other so that meaningful change can take place. Don’t hold your breath, as you are looking at a 3-billion-to-one chance of this happening every 60,000 years! In the meantime our pre-human primate has accumulated and locked in some 1.8 million deleterious mutations, and it doesn’t matter if they are in random locations. They will all cause damage.

To get around this problem, many human geneticists have arbitrarily assumed unlimited time when constructing their mathematical models. They have also assumed nearly all mutations have zero negative effect on biological fitness. They assume the perfect heritability of all beneficial mutations, mutual cancellation of deleterious mutations via epistasis, and artificial selection instead of natural selection. But clearly these assumptions do not reflect reality. Yet they are constantly included in research papers to get around the intractable problem of this mutational ratio. They, and the entire world of biological science, are stuck with a deleterious mutation ratio that has destroyed the prime axiom, and is destroying the credibility of evolutionary theory.

China’s One Belt, One Road Grand Plan

Two years ago I was in Kazakhstan visiting my brother. We were taken for a drive one day out to a national park 3 hours east of Almaty. Part of the trip was on your average Soviet era road system. However, for about 30 km we intersected a brand new concrete four lane highway. It was world class. It was part of China’s One Belt-One Road infrastructure grand plan. Its real, its being built. When we flew out a few days alter I could see this concrete snake taking shape over hundreds of kilometers.

I just read this interesting summary of the plan by John Mauldin. Enjoy.

China’s Belt & Road Initiative looks like a giant infrastructure program, and it is, but that’s not all. It is Xi’s mercantilist version of the US-led postwar Marshall Program. Where we carved out leadership via institutions and trade agreements, while at the same time supplying much-needed money, China seeks to do the same by physically connecting itself with the Eurasian continent. I have said from the beginning that this may be one of Xi’s most profoundly disruptive and transformative policies of his career. There was some skepticism when it was first announced as the scope was so massive, but I think everyone is now a true believer. China is committing to putting its hard dollars into completing this project’s multi-decade vision.

(Click to enlarge)

As my friend George Friedman often says, China’s main strategic challenge is that the US controls the seas. Geography means China’s imports and exports must traverse coastal bottlenecks the US could easily close if it wished. That’s intolerable if your goal is to be a superpower, and that’s definitely what Xi wants.

One Belt, One Road is the answer. It will link the Eurasian land mass into a giant trading bloc with Europe at one end and China at the other. The project will open land routes the US cannot interdict, thereby letting China take what it feels is its rightful place of leadership. The scope is breathtaking, but Beijing is determined to make it happen. Again, I would not bet against Xi on this.

Notice all the smaller Asian countries that the One Road goes through. It will give you access to not only East Asia but Europe as well. China is building a “main pipeline” not unlike Eisenhower’s interstate highway system. And that means all those little countries will access that main road. Ultimately, China wants to pay for all the products it buys in Renminbi and have those small countries make it part of their central bank holdings. That is part of the process of becoming a reserve currency, which is something China covets. The same thing is true for the project’s ocean and seaport aspects.

Whatever your feelings about Chinese leadership, you have to admire a country that can undertake such a huge project that will take decades to fulfill. While Xi and his team may be starting it, it is unlikely anyone currently on top will still be on top in 30 years. That is Vision with a capital V.

Gender Dysphoria and Maternal Psychology





Kevin Davis

I Am Jazz Book Review








Kevin Davis