The idea that 'mutations cause evolution' is a falsehood

Mutations are dislocations, breaks and impairments as a result of
radiation of chemical effects in the DNA molecule in the nucleus of
the living cell and thatcarries all the information about a human
being. The information in DNA is setout by 4 separate nucleotides,
symbolized by the letters A, T, C and G, laid out in a special and
significant sequence. But an error in a single letter in that
sequence will damage the entire structure. The leukemia observed in
children appears because one of the letters in the DNA is incorrect.
The reason fordiseases such as cancer appearing or subsequent
generations being deformed as a result of the radiation leakage in
Chernobyl of the atom bomb droppedover Hiroshima is harmful effects of
this kind caused by mutations in people's bodies.
Almost all mutations are harmful, and they are generally lethal to
living things. Examples of mutations that are not harmful generally do
theorganism no good, and are at best neutral. Scientists have
concluded that not a single one out of all those that have been
studied has had a positive effect on a living thing's life. 1
But the theory of evolution is based on fictitious mutations that
produce "new" living things and work miracles. Darwinists maintain
that species emerge from one another through structures and organs
appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial
mutations. This claim, a source of terrible shame for Darwinists, is
put forward by Darwinist scientists who know thatmutations always harm
an organism. Moreover, although Darwinists are well aware of these
harmful effects of mutations they still pointto a mutant, four-winged
fruit fly subjected to mutations in the laboratory in support of their
claims. Darwinists portrayed theextra pair of wings produced in a
fruit fly as a result of carefully performed mutations as the greatest
evidence that mutations could lead to evolution. But the two wings in
question actually damaged the creature rather than benefiting
it,leading to its losing the ability to fly. The University of
California molecular biologist summarizes the position as follows:
In the 1970s, Cal Tech geneticist Edward B. Lewis discovered that
bycarefully breeding three mutant strains he was able to produce a
fruit fly in which the balancers were transformed into a second pair
of normal-looking wings.
At first glance, this mightseem to provide evidence for Carroll's
claim that small developmental changes in regulatory DNA can produce
large evolutionary changes in form. But the fruit fly is still a fruit
fly. Furthermore, although the second pair of wingslooks normal, it
has no flight muscles. A four-winged fruit fly is like an airplane
with a second pair of wings dangling uselessly from its tail. It has
great difficulty flying or mat­ing, so it can survive only in the
laboratory. Asevidence for evolution, afour-winged fruit fly is no
better than a two-headed calf in a circus sideshow. 2
Jonathan Wells continues:
Disabled fruit flies with extra wings or missing legs have taught us
something about developmental genetics, but nothing about evolution.
All of the evidence points to one conclusion: no matter what we do to
a fruit fly embryo, there are only three possible outcomes-a normal
fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. Not even
ahorsefly, much less a horse. 3
As we have seen, the four-winged mutant fruit fly that is the only
evidence that Darwinistspoint to in support of their warped claims is
in fact nothing more than adisabled fruit fly. No matter what effect
mutations may have on a life form, they do not possess the miraculous
property of bestowing a characteristic belonging to another life form
ontoit. But Darwinists want to believe the lie that miracles occur in
living things by way of mutations.
The interesting thing is that although Darwinist scientists know that
the fruit fly in question is defective, attempts are still made to
depict it as the greatest evidence for evolution by mutation in school
text books. The molecular biologist Jonathan Wells writes:
According to Peter Raven and George Johnson's 1999 textbook, Biology ,
"all evolution begins with alterations in the genetic message… Genetic
change through mutation and recombination [the re-arrangement of
existing genes] provides the raw materials for evolution." The same
page features a photo ofa four-winged fruit fly, which is described as
"a mutant because of changes in Ultrabithorax , a gene regulating a
critical stage of development; it possesses two thoracic segments and
thus two sets of wings."
…
Adding to the confusion,textbook accounts typically leave the reader
with the impression that the extra wings represent a gain of
structures. But four-winged fruit flies have actually lost structures
which they need for flying. Their balancers are gone, and instead of
being replaced with somethingnew have been replacedwith copies of
structuresalready present in another segment. Although pictures of
four-winged fruit flies give the impression that mutations have added
something new, the exact opposite is closer to the truth. 4
Even if we assume that the "fictitious first cell" that Darwinists
claim represents the beginning of life and that cannot possibly have
come into being bychance did actually emerge spontaneously, even the
smallest stage of the imaginary evolutionary process that would have
to take place to give rise to man with his complex structure would
require an astounding amount of information to be produced and
countless mutations to take place. "All" of these many mutations have
to be beneficial to the life form or else bring about the appearance
of something "new." Because a single error inthis fictitious
developinglife form will cause the entire system to go wrong and
collapse. Ninety-nine percent of mutations are harmful while 1% are
neutral. It flies in the face of both reason and science, therefore,
to suggest that every single one of these mutations that would have to
take place according to the theory of evolution can be beneficial.
It is therefore impossiblefor a brand new organ or characteristic that
didnot exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations.
Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that
does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism. The
idea of mutation represents the greatest manifestation of the
falsehood and illogicality of Darwinism.Because the idea of evolution
is based on these illusory "beneficialmutation" that do not in fact
exist.
The Infinite Amount ofTime Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations
Even if we hypothesize that beneficial mutations could take place, the
idea of mutation is still incompatible with the theory of evolution.
In a paper titled "The Inadequacy of Neo-Darwinian EvolutionAs a
Scientific Theory," Professor Murray Eden from the MIT (Massachusetts
Institute of Technology) Faculty ofElectrical Engineering showed that
if it required a mere six mutations to bring about an adaptive change,
this would occurby chance only once in a billion years - while, if two
dozen genes were involved, it would require 10,000,000,000 years,
which is much longer than the age of the Earth. 5 Even if we assume
that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs and
structures requiring more than onemutation to occur at the same time,
mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for
Darwinists. Even Professor of Paleontology George G. Simpson, one of
the most unrepentant Darwinists, clearly states that it would take an
infinite length of time for five mutations to happen at the same time.
6 An infinite amount of time means zero probability. And that is a
probability applying to all the structures and organisms possessed by
living things. There is thus no possibility of theglorious variety of
life we see in our daily lives coming about through mutations.
The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation
regarding the mutation claim in question. He admitted that in a
community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new
generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only
take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times
greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years. 7 These,
of course, are all calculations assuming that mutations have a
positive effect of that new generations gave rise to. But no such
assumption applies in the real world.
Why Is the Body That Is Supposedly EvolvingProtected against Mutations?
All evolutionist scientists know that the probability of a replication
error taking place in a living thing's DNA for no reason is verylow.
Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell
that prevent genetic errors arising. The information in DNA cannot be
copied in the absence of particular enzymes that protect one another
against errors. These include doubt-filter enzymes for ensuring that
the right amino acid binds to the right tRNA. One filter rejects amino
acids that are too large, and the other those that are too small.
This is a very sensitive and rational system. There are also enzymes
that do the final checks against the possibility of any error arising
in this intelligent system. Scientists have concluded that there is
abetter cellular control and protection system aimed at maintaining
the integrity of DNA thanthey had ever imagined. 8
Pierre Paul Grassé, who spent 30 years as professor of evolution atthe
Sorbonne, wrote thison the subject:
The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer's
"Melancholia" is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy
errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye. 9
Darwinists ignore this miraculous system in DNA and avoid going deeply
into the subject and coming with any explanation of it. But they
construct a scenarioof the history of life builton replication errors
with an almost zero possibility of coming about. This once again
reveals the nonsensical nature of Darwinist logic.
Following the realizationthat Darwin's idea of natural selection very
definitely did not constitute an account of the so-called evolution
and the emergence of the laws of genetics as a lethal blow to
Darwinism, the claim of the "evolutionary effect of mutations," which
had been the main weapon of neo-Darwinism, was seen to be no more than
a deception. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that a mechanism
such as mutation, which damages, destroys and kills the living
organism, as well as sometimes harming all subsequent generations, can
give rise to whole new living things.
But masses of people were taken in by this lie for years. Darwinist
scientists of course knowthat mutations have no such miraculous power.
Even Richard Dawkins, one of the present day's most fervid Darwinists,
admits that "most mutations are deleterious, so some undesirable side
effect ispretty likely." 10 The reason why Darwinists still propose
this discredited claim as a mechanism for evolutionis their devotion
to the superstitious religion of Darwinism.
1 Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense, Evidence Against Evolution,
Master Books, 2001, pp. 74-75
2 Jonathan Wells, Ph.D., The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism
and Intelligent Design, Regnery Publishing Inc., Washington, 2006,
p.34
3 Ibid., p. 36
4 Jonathan Wells, Icons of Evolution, pp.185,186, 187
5 Gordon Rattray Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, Sphere Books
Ltd., 1984, p. 4
6 Ibid., p. 230
7 Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense Evidence Against Evolution,
Master Books, 2001, p.81
8 Ibid., pp.74-75
9 Ibid., p. 81
10 Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, Oxford University Press,
1999, p. 141 - - ▓███▓ Translator:->
http://translate.google.com/m/ ▓███▓ - -