The İnvalidity Of The Famous Darwinist Claim That ''Useful Mutations Do Exist.''

The false idea that useful mutations exist is a classic Darwinist
claim. Although the whole scientific world knows, with absolute
scientific evidence, that mutations have a destructive or fatal
effect, this claim is still persistently made, out of a fear of
humiliation. Because Darwinism is a theory that depends totally on
mutations. All Darwinists know that if the destructive effect were
to be mentioned just once, that would spell the end of Darwinism. It
is for that reason they try to give the impression, citing invalid
and utterly pitiful examples, that mutations can be beneficial. But
this is a complete deception.
· As we have set out many times before,
mutations have a net harmful effect, with only 1% being neutral,
though the latest scientific research has shown that even these can
produce long-term damage in the organism. [1] The net harmful effect
of mutations is not a psychological defense mechanism, but an
explicit truth revealed by science.
· If Darwinists object to this, then they are
directly flying in the face of science. Because this is not a matter
of opinion, but an absolute scientific fact.
· It is impossible for mutations to bestow any
useful characteristic. Under normal conditions, everything in a
living body exhibits complete regularity, order and symmetry. In
addition, these systems co-exist with the most delicate balances
and exhibit a glorious complexity right down to the finest detail.
Mutations are random interventions, such as with radiation, and
mean breakages, impairments and dislocations. They INEVITABLY
DAMAGE these extraordinarily complex systems, with their regularity,
symmetry and order. It is illogical and a violation of science to
maintain anything else.
· The results at Chernobyl, Nagasaki and
Hiroshima were all the results of mutations. Under the effect of
mutations, organisms with regular structures either died or suffered
severe damage, and this harmful effect even manifested itself in
subsequent generations.
· Darwinists generally cite various examples of
immunity in order to try to corroborate their claims that
"beneficial mutations do exist." But these examples all consist of
a variation or impairment in bacteria or immune cells.
· Sometimes, a dislocation in a single DNA
nucleotide, or base, can bestow immunity to an antibiotic on a
micro- organism. But although this may be useful to the
micro-organism, IT IS NOT A BENEFICIAL MUTATION. Because the
mutation in question has actually harmed the micro-organism. The
ribosome sequence belonging to the micro- organism has been
impaired, and it prevents the antibiotic binding to the organism by
damaging the lock and key harmony. In other words, rather than there
being any novelty in the micro-organism, we are looking at a loss
of information.
· Mutations are literally like firing at a
regular structure with a machine gun. Opening fire on a healthy
structure will entirely do away with that structure. The fact that
one bullet has no effect or destroys an existing infection in the
body changes nothing. The organism will already have been killed by
the other 99 bullets hitting it.
· The example that Darwinists cite with such
examples is like a bullet healing the body by destroying a single
infection. The organism is devastated by mutations, but Darwinists
concentrate on the one that heals this infection.
· Since the subject of mutations constitutes one
of the most damaging points for Darwinists they engage in
demagoguery by depicting minor instances of variation or the effects
examined above as major evidence. The fact is, however, that the
adherents of evolution, who maintain that all living things acquired
their present symmetrical and complex structures by way of
evolution, have to be able to cite examples of mutations that take
place one after the other and are all beneficial, and that also
bestow new information on the organism.
· What is more, Darwinists also have to provide
evidence for the scenario of one living thing's physiology turning
into that of another life form through mutation at the macro level.
BUT THEY CANNOT EVEN CONTEMPLATE PRODUCING SUCH EVIDENCE. Because
as they know full well, mutations destroy and ruin and occasionally
entirely destroy the organism concerned.
· It addition, we need to make the following
point very clear: mutations can never bestow any new data on an
organism that is not already in its genome. That is impossible. The
examples alleged to have "added new information" are all
misleading. No new genetic information is ever added. All that
happens is that information already existing in a living thing's
genes starts to be used by becoming more visible as a result of
variations.
· Breaks and dislocations in the bases that make
up DNA CAN NEVER PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION. They do not equate to
information that did not already exist being bestowed on a living
thing. Darwinists are without doubt well aware of this. But they
insist on depicting dislocations in genetic bases as new data. This
is an example of Darwinist demagoguery.