I don't believe Evolution because it's false. It's as simple as that. And I can say that because I actually done my research instead of just believing what people say.
Let's take a look at the evidence against evolution, shall we?
1. Spontaneous Generation
Evolutionists presuppose life spontaneously arose in goo and evolved to you. Yes, I know evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis. However, evolution presupposes abiogenesis.
It is more reasonable to conclude that organic life was designed by an intelligent agent than arise by chance or accident.
The more they have learned about cells, more and more scientists, such as Dr. Michael Behe and Dr. Stephen Meyer, are coming out stating it is reasonable to conclude cells were designed. They based that on what they do know, not on what they don't know. And they arrive at that conclusion using scientific methods.
Dr. Meyer states:
"Experience teaches that information-rich systems … invariable result from intelligent causes, not naturalistic ones. Yet origin-of-life biology has artificially limited its explanatory search to the naturalistic nodes of causation … chance and necessity. Finding the best explanation, however, requires invoking causes that have the power to produce the effect in question. When it comes to information, we know of only one such cause. For this reason, the biology of the information age now requires a new science of design.
(Stephen C. Meyer, Mere Creation, pg. 140).
"Indeed, in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."
(Stephen C. Meyer, DNA and Other Designs)
"Intelligent design provides a sufficient causal explanation for the origin of large amounts of information, since we have considerable experience of intelligent agents generating informational configurations of matter."
(Meyer S. C. et. al., "The Cambrian Explosion: Biology's Big Bang," in Darwinism, Design, and Public Education, edited by J. A. Campbell and S. C. Meyer ( Michigan State University Press, 2003)
Where did all the coded information in DNA come from?
From Yockey: “The reason that there are principles of biology that cannot be derived from the laws of physics and chemistry lies simply in the fact that the genetic information content of the genome for constructing even the simplest organisms is much larger than the information content of these laws. The existence of a genome and the genetic code divides living organisms from nonliving matter. There is nothing in the physico-chemical world that remotely resembles reactions being determined by a sequence and codes between sequences.”
Yockey said (2005) “If genetical processes were just complicated biochemistry, the laws of mass action and thermodynamics would govern the placement of amino acids in the protein sequences.” But they don’t.
Are codes used as a metaphor or analogy in Biology?
The book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life is written by Hubert Yockey​ , the foremost living specialist in bioinformatics. The publisher is Cambridge University press. Yockey rigorously demonstrates that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process and mathematical definitions used in Electrical Engineering. This is not subjective, it is not debatable or even controversial. It is a brute fact:
“Information, transcription, translation, CODE, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory (Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, METAPHORS, or ANALOGIES.” (Hubert P. Yockey, Information Theory, Evolution, and the Origin of Life, Cambridge University Press, 2005)
Dr. Werner Gitt, a professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology:
"A code system is always the result of a mental process… It should be emphasized that matter as such is unable to generate any code. All experiences indicate that a thinking being voluntarily exercising his own free will, cognition, and creativity, is required… There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this."
(Werner Gitt, In the Beginning Was Information, CLV, Bielenfeld, Germany, pp. 64-7, 79)
We have 100% inference based on all the codes we DO know the origin of. There are thousands of codes we do know the origin of and all of them are designed. There are no codes that we have observed that were not designed. And there is one code we don’t know the origin of.
This is argument based on what we do know, not what we might find out someday. Based on the scientific method - which uses inference and induction - we have every reason to believe DNA is designed.
100% of our real world observations tells us that ALL codes ALWAYS originate via mental processes. Without exception. We have not one single counter example. While at the same time we have 0% observation of codes comming from unintelligent processes. Zero. Notta. El'zillcho. So EVERYTHING we KNOW empirically is that codes ALWAYS come via mental processes.
If you reject the inference to design then on the same grounds you would have to reject the assertion that the laws of physics are the same everywhere in the universe. Because the fact is, the laws of physics are only consistent SO FAR AS WE KNOW.
If you reject the inference to design then there shouldn't be a discipline called Forensic Science or Archaeology.
The more scientists have learned about the cell the more they have given up on the reality of abiogenesis because on how incredibly complex and sophisticated it is. Scientists have said it themselves:
"All of us who study the origin of life find that the more we look into it, the more we feel it is too complex to have evolved anywhere. We all believe as an article of faith that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that life's complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did."
(Dr. Harold Urey, Nobel Prize winner)
"We have always underestimated the cell...The entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines...Why do we call [them] machines? Precisely because, like machines invented by humans to deal efficiently with the macroscopic world, these protein assemblies contain highly coordinated moving parts."
(Bruce Alberts​ , President, National; Academy of Sciences "The Cell as a Collectrion of Protein Machines," Cell 92, February 8, 1998)
"We should reject, as a matter of principle the substitution of intelligent design for the dialogue of chance and necessity; but we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical system, only a variety of wishful speculations."
(Biochemist, Franklin M. Harold "The Way of the Cell," page 205)
"The simplicity that was once expected to be the foundation of life has proven to be a phantom; instead, systems of horrendous, irreducible complexity inhabit the cell. The resulting realization that life was designed by an intelligence is a shock to us in the twentieth century who have gotten used to thinking of life as the result of simple natural laws. But other centuries have had their shocks, and there is no reason to suppose that we should escape them. Humanity has endured as the center of the heavens moved from the earth to beyond the sun, as the history of life expanded to encompass long-dead reptiles, as the eternal universe proved mortal. We will endure the opening of Darwin's Black box"
(Michael j. Behe, Biochemist "Darwin's Black Box, pg. 252")
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
(Dr. Francis Crick, biochemist, Nobel Prize winner, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature, pg. 88)
"Contrary to the popular notion that only creationism relies on the supernatural, evolutionism must as well, since the probabilities of random formation of life are so tiny as to require a 'miracle' for spontaneous generation tantamount to a theological argument."
(Dr. Chandra Wickramasinge, cited in, Creation vs Evolution, John Ankerberg​ , pg. 20.)
"The probability of a single protein molecule being arranged by chance is, 1 in 10-161 power, using all the atoms on earth and allowing all the time since the world began...for a minimum set of required 239 protein molecules for the smallest theoretical life, the probability is, 1 in 10-119,879 power. It would take, 10-119,879 power, years on average to get a set of such proteins. That is 10-119,831 times the assumed age of the earth and is a figure with 119,831 zeros."
(Dr. James Coppege from, "The Farce of Evolution" page 71)
"Human DNA contains more organized information than the Encyclopedia Britannica​ . If the full text of the encyclopedia were to arrive in computer code from outer space, most people would regard this as proof of the existence of extraterrestrial intelligence. But when seen in nature, it is explained as the workings of random forces."
(George Sim Johnson "Did Darwin Get it Right?" The Wall Street Journal, October 15, 1999)
"One must conclude that, contrary to the established and current wisdom, a scenario describing the genesis of life on earth by chance and natural causes which can be accepted on the basis of fact and not faith has not been written."
(Dr. Hubert P. Yockey)
"Organic molecules, therefore form a large and formidable array, endless in variety and of the most bewildering complexity. One cannot think of having organisms without them. This is precisely the trouble, for to understand how organisms originated we must first of all explain how such complicated molecules could come into being. And that is only the beginning. To make an organism requires not only a tremendous variety of these substances, in adequate amounts and proper proportions, but also just the right arrangement of them. Structure here is as important as composition - and what a complication of structural. The most complex machine man has devised - say an electronic brain - is child’s play compared with the simplest of living organisms. The especially trying thing is that complexity here involves such small dimensions. It is on the molecular level; it consists of a detailed fitting of molecule to molecule such as no chemist can attempt."
(G. Wald, “The Origin of Life,” Scientific American, Vol. 191, No. 4.)
"When it comes to the origin of life on this earth, there are only two possibilities: creation or spontaneous generation (evolution). There is no third way. Spontaneous generation was disproved 100 years ago, but that leads us only to one other conclusion: that of supernatural creation. We cannot accept that on philosophical grounds; therefore, we choose to believe the impossible: that life arose spontaneously by chance."
(G. Wald)
"The improbability involved in generating even one bacterium is so large that it reduces all considerations of time and space to nothingness. Given such odds, the time until the black holes evaporate and the space to the ends of the universe would make no difference at all. If we were to wait, we would truly be waiting for a miracle."
(R. Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic’s Guide to the Creation of Life on earth, New York: Bantam Books, 1986, pp. 227-228.)
"It is still to be demonstrated how these essential molecules, such as haemoglobin, chlorophyll and other proteins and nucleic acids were formed. But even if we were to allow a primeval soup to have existed for the full history of the Earth (4,000-4,500 million years), complex proteins and nucleic-acid molecules could never have been produced by random, chance interactions. However, here are you and I on Earth today. And the evidence of the fossil record shows that some sequence of events of almost zero probability did take place over 3,500 million years ago. Before the event, the chances that it would occur were exceedingly small. What is more, from out understanding of the possible processes leading to the origin of life and the critical part played by living organisms in the development processes, the transition from non-living to living matter probably occurred only once and could have occurred only once. The origin of life was an almost utterly improbable event with almost impossible odds against a chance happening But life did originate. So was it by chance? Or was it by design and control?"
(Brooks, Jim [geochemist, former Vice-President, Geological Society], "Origins of Life," Lion: Tring, Hertfordshire UK, 1985, p.87).
So we have scientists who say, in essence, it is highly, highly unlikely for organic life to form by chance and we have scientists who say, in essence, it is highly likely that it was designed.
So why do you still believe life came about accident or chance rather than by design?
2. Prokaryote to Eukaryote (said like “pro-care-ee-oat” and “you-care-ee-oat”)
“Gradual accumulation of mutations is never the way eukaryotes evolve … the Cambrian Explosion was caused by symbiosis—not mutation. All symbionts are new species.” Prof. Lynn Margulis, U of Mass-Amherst, in a lecture at U of Cincinnati, 3/1/07
This is a “missing link” that is second only to the origin of life, in the nightmares of the evolution-believers. How did bacteria turn into cells hundreds of times bigger than them, which have things inside them like the nucleus and other organelles? There is a giant total blank in the evolution story right here. Evolutionists will tell you and teach you that mutations did it all—but there is no way to even imagine how mutations could ever create new and original genetic information that would be needed to make the jump from bacteria to cells like amoebas, and then on to creatures made of many such cells, like fish, lizards, and people.
3. Cambrian Explosion (said like “came-bree-in” explosion)
"The fossil record had caused Darwin more grief than joy. Nothing distressed him more than the Cambrian explosion, the coincident appearance of almost all complex organic designs…” Stephen Jay Gould, in his book, The Panda's Thumb (1980) p238-9
“As Darwin noted in the Origin of the Species, the abrupt emergence of arthropods in the fossil record during the Cambrian presents a problem for evolutionary biology.” American Scientist, May/June 1997, p244
The Creation Model says that all life forms were created during the same week. The Evolution Model says it took three and a half billion years. What do we find in the deepest layers that contain fossils?—just bacteria. What do we find in the deepest muds today?—just bacteria. What do we find in the fossils just above the bacteria? We find representatives from every one of the Phyla (said “fye-lah”; singular Phylum) of living things, even the vertebrates. The sudden boundary-line of so many living things, with no “missing links” leading up to them, only goes along with the Creation Model—and only goes against the Evolution Model. The data says Darwin is wrong.
4. Missing Links
“The number of intermediate varieties, which must have formerly existed on the earth, [must] be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graded organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory.” Charles Darwin, “Origin on the Species” (1859)
“All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt. Gradualists usually extract themselves from this dilemma by invoking the extreme imperfection of the fossil record.” Stephen J. Gould, in article “The Return of Hopeful Monsters,” Natural History, (1977) 86(6): p22-30
“The evidence for the big transformations in evolution are not there in the fossil record. It’s difficult to explore a billion-year-old fossil record. Be patient!” William Provine, biology professor at Cornell University, The Washington Post, May 15, 2005, p D6
Everyone has heard the term “missing link” so many times that we tend to forget what it really says to us. Fossils that could show the evolution of any one original kind of life into any one new kind of life are—missing! Evolution requires these “missing link” fossils to be real, for the theory to have any proof from the fossils. All arguing aside—there really aren’t any that have ever been found. Darwin-followers have even quit trying to find the “missing links” for land plants and for all of the many kinds of insects.
5. Stasis of Living Things
How did hundreds or thousands of species not change (morphologically and anatomically) in the last 100+ million years when there were ice ages, meteor impacts, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis etc.? And let's not forget the supposed huge catastrophic event that happened 65 million years ago that wiped out 75% of species. It's certain after such a huge event that lead to the supposed mass extinction the tempo of evolution would increase while life would scramble to form new dramatic varied species that would thrive in the new environmental niche and changes to the living fossils. Surely selective pressure in the last 100+ million years with such events would have lead to changes. But apparently not. The same reason I assume (using the evolutionists' paradigm) the species would change at least a little morphologically is the same reasons evolutionists assume humans evolved from some ape in the last 7 million years.
What do evolutionists have to say?
“Stasis, or nonchange, of most fossil species during their lengthy geological lifespans was tacitly acknowledged by all paleontologists, but almost never studied explicitly because prevailing theory treated stasis as uninteresting nonevidence for nonevolution. ...The overwhelming prevalence of stasis became an embarrassing feature of the fossil record, best left ignored as a manifestation of nothing (that is, nonevolution).” Stephen J. Gould, "Cordelia's Dilemma," Natural History, 1993, p15
Niles Eldredge remarked: “In the context of Darwin’s own founding conceptions, and certainly from the perspective of the modern synthesis, living fossils are something of an enigma, if not an embarrassment.” (Eldredge and Stanley p. 272)
Peter Ward does too as in his 1992 book:terms living fossils “evolutionary curiosities, more embarrassments to the theory of evolution than anything else.” (p. 13)
Evolution-believers don’t like to talk about this problem—so they usually don’t mention stasis. The Creation Model says that all of the kinds of living things should stay pretty much the same, up until the time when they might go extinct and then just disappear forever. The Evolution Model says that all kinds of living things should constantly be changing! That’s how worms turned into us, according to their theory. The ancient coelacanth fish (said like “see-luh-kanth”) is just one example. Its fins have small bones in them. So, evolutionists thought those might have evolved into fingers by the time the coelacanth evolved into us. Then we found coelacanths alive in the Indian Ocean—and they look exactly like their fossils do! Sad and disappointed, evolutionists picked another fish-cousin of the coelacanth, to be our great grandfather. They forgot to think about one problem though. Why and how could evolution take one fish and turn it into dinosaurs, birds, rats, elephants, seagulls, turtles, whales, horses, and hummingbirds, and leave the coelacanth totally the same all through this same period of time? There is no answer—except that Darwin is wrong. As a matter of fact, all life forms on the growing list of “living fossils” cause this same contradiction for an evolutionist. These “living fossils” have never changed —never “evolved” at all—since the beginning of the world. And they are not rare. They are “overwhelmingly prevalent” in the fossil record. They are the rule, not the exception.
6. Ancient Biomolecules
“I looked at this and I looked at this and I thought, this can’t be. Red blood cells don’t preserve.” Mary H. Schweitzer, in an article, “Dinosaur Shocker” By Helen Fields http://www.smithsonianmagazine.com/issues/2006/may/dinosaur.php
"I am quite aware that according to conventional wisdom and models of fossilization, these structures aren't supposed to be there, but there they are, and I was pretty shocked." Mary H. Schweitzer, evolutionary paleontologist at North Carolina State U, in Science, vol 307, no 5717, p1952-55, 3/25/2005 http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sciencenow/3411/01.html
“… it was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But of course I couldn’t believe it…the bones after all are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?” from article “Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype,” Science, July 9, 1993, p60
“Ohio State University geologists isolated the oldest complex organic compounds found in a fossil. They found the compounds in 350-million-year-old fossils of sea creatures known as crinoids.” www.researchnews.osu.edu/archive/foscolor.htm 10/23/2006
Here is another big problem for Darwin-believers. Scientists have discovered preserved bits of the original flesh, blood, and bone of forms of life that the Evolution Model says went extinct—way too long ago for these things to still be around without having petrified into rock first. Such molecules have been verified in the remains of Neanderthal humans, mammoths, moa birds, dinosaurs (t-rex, triceratops, maiasaur), and even creatures that the Evolution Model says should be five times older than the dinosaurs! Biological molecules like collagen, hemoglobin, and color pigments, should have been rotted away by now if the fossils really are very much older than the time of Noah’s Flood (less than 4400 years ago). But they aren’t—they’re not millions of years old, and they’re not decayed into dust. That’s why they are still around to be discovered. Darwin is wrong about his whole time scale of things, which goes completely against the findings of science truth—and makes evolution a science-fantasy.
7. DNA fingerprinting for Adam & Eve
They “…looked at an international assortment of genes and picked up a trail of DNA that led them to a single (individual) woman from whom we are all descended.” “We are finding that humans have very, very shallow genetic roots which go back very recently to one ancestor.” Michael Hammer, University of Arizona, Newsweek, 1-11-1988
“That indicates that there was an origin in a specific location on the globe and then it spread out from there.” U.S. News and World Report, 12-4-1995
“Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that ‘mitochondrial Eve’—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that’s the case…” Ann Gibbons, “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” Science, Jan. 2, 1998, page 28.
“By analyzing DNA from people in all regions of the world, Wells has concluded that all humans alive today are descended from a single man also known as Y-chromosomal Adam.” Wells wrote the book The Journey of Man: A Genetic Odyssey (2002). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_Wells
Darwin said we would find millions of monkey fossils showing how they all gradually evolved into humans. That’s the Evolution Model. The Creation Model says the human race began with only two people (and hasn’t changed much since). The science of DNA has now proven—all humans come from one man and one woman. Is that really a surprise? Biblical Creation is right!
8. Four Human Gene Pools
The evolutionist book and documentary mentioned above in #7 by Darwin-believer Spencer Wells, also contains the finding that all humans come from only one of four distinct gene pools. The significance of this has slipped past the evolutionists. It has not slipped past the creationists. Think about our ancestors. There was one time in the history of mankind when everybody was killed—all except for just eight humans. These were Noah’s family—including his three sons and their wives. The Noah gene pool was on the Ark—plus the three extra family blood lines from the three wives. That makes four. DNA proves that the Biblical history of Noah’s Ark is right.
Not only human DNA, but also goat and sheep DNA—all living goats are descended from five ancient females. All sheep come from four ancestral ewes (Science News, 10/14/06, p245). But didn’t Noah take “two of every kind” on the Ark? No—not all. He took more of the “clean” animals. If all goats came from just one female, it might make the Ark history seem to be in question. If all came from twenty goats, then it could actually prove that Noah’s Ark was just a fairy tale. But science truth verifies the claims of the Creation Model time and time again. So Bible-believers need not fear the newest scientific findings. Science truth is on our side! Science truth shows Darwin-believers are wrong. “They did not like to retain God in their knowledge.” Romans 1:28
9. Phylogerontology (said like “fye-loh-jaron-tah-loh-jee”)
The terms “geriatrics” or “gerontology” might sound familiar. They involve the study of old age. Phylogerontology is the study of the aging of family lines. In biology, this means the aging and the decaying of the DNA in any line of ancestors leading up to the living members of any kind of living thing existing today. The DNA of Adam & Eve was perfect. But since the Fall of Man in the Garden of Eden, decay has been happening. Not only did humans gradually begin to experience sickness and death, but the DNA of the entire human race soon began to become filled up with mutations—in the form of copy-mistakes in the DNA of every new generation. Since everyone has two versions of most of their chromosomes, we’ve all got a “spare” for most of our genes. So if one becomes non-functional because of the gradual buildup of mutations in the human genome, the other one can do the whole job alone. Since people in the same families will have more of the same mutations, it is not good to marry a close relative and have children with them. This is called “inbreeding.” Until there were large numbers of bad mutations in the genome, inbreeding would not have been so much of a medical problem. In early Bible times, inbreeding was not forbidden until the time of Moses. Before that, Abraham married his half-sister Sarah. All of Adam & Eve’s children married their brothers and sisters (or at least their nieces and nephews). It was not forbidden before Moses, and it would not have been medically dangerous yet, either. Now today, people cannot even marry their distant cousins without being in danger of expressing lethal mutations in their children. This would be true after only 600 generations. That’s how many there have been in the 6000 years since Adam & Eve. According to the Evolution Model, there has been 200,000 years of time for humans to buildup bad mutations in their DNA—and over three billion years of us evolving and mutating from bacteria before that! None of our DNA should still be able to work if that was true. The wear-and-tear from mutations would have ruined it all by this time—if Darwin was right.
10. Random mutations doesn't add genetic information.
This alone falsifies the idea all life evolved from some common ancestor. Scientists should be observing random mutations generating novel genetic information that would explain the huge diversity of life we see today. But they don't. In fact, they observe the opposite: they find random mutations destroying genetic information. One scientist, Sykes, even predicts that human males will go extinct in a few thousand years because of random mutations.
How is biological information quantified?
Dr. Lee Spetner offers his definition.
The information content of an enzyme is the sum of many parts, among which are:
Level of catalytic activity
Specificity with respect to the substrate
Strength of binding to cell structure
Specificity of binding to cell structure
Specificity of the amino-acid sequence devoted to specifying the enzyme for degradation
Go here for more information http://creation.com/how-is-information-content-measured
Random mutations destroy genetic information. So how can you get a hypothetical primordial cell to an ape in a few billion years?
"The idea that random mutation creates biological diversity fails computer simulations*; it fails if you compute the statistics; and it fails biologically. This observation was confirmed by Theodosius Dobzhansky's fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt's gypsy moth experiments, and others. Decades of research were conducted in the early 20th century, bombarding fruit flies and moths with radiation in hope of mutating their DNA and producing improved creatures. These experiments were a total failure – there were no observed improvements – only weak, sickly, deformed fruit flies."
Richard Dawkins is at lost of words when asked to address the problem http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g Notice he didn't directly answer the question.
"Accordingly, mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability, and, to the best of our knowledge, invariably affect it adversely."—*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," American Scientist, p. 102.
". . I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance."—*George Wald, in *Paul S. Moorehead and *Martin M. Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, pp. 18-19.
"The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration."—*Sewall Wrigh, in Julian Huxley, "The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in relation to Speciation," The New Systematics, p. 174.
"Like radiation-induced mutations, nearly all spontaneous mutations with detectable effects are harmful."—Arthur Custance, Longevity in Antiquity, p. 1160.
"The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities, and mutations seem to be destructive rather than a constructive process."—*Encyclopedia Americana​, Vol. 10, p. 742.
"Do we, therefore, ever see mutations going about the business of producing new structures for selection to work on? No nascent organ has ever been observed emerging, though their origin in pre-functional form is basic to evolutionary theory. Some should be visible today, occurring in organisms at various stages up to integration of a functional new system, but we don't see them: There is no sign at all of this kind of radical novelty. Neither observation nor controlled experiments has shown natural selection manipulating mutations so as to produce a new gene, hormone, enzyme system, or organ."—*Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, pp. 67-68.
"Upon rigorous examination and analysis, any dogmatic assertion . . that gene mutations are the raw material for an evolutionary process involving natural selection is an utterance of a myth."—*John N. Moore, On Chromosomes, Mutations, and Phylogeny, p. 5.
"This is really the theory that [says] if you start with fourteen lines of coherent English and change it one letter at a time, keeping only those things that still make sense, you will eventually finish up with one of the sonnets of Shakespeare . . it strikes me as a lunatic sort of logic, and I think we should be able to do better."—*C.H. Waddington [a geneticist], "Evolution," in Science Today, p. 38.
"There is no single instance where it can be maintained that any of the mutants studied has a higher vitality than the mother species . . It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations."—*N. Herbert Nilsson, Synthetische Artbildung [Synthetic Speciation], p. 1157.
"As a generation principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate, both in scope and theoretical grounding."—*Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology, p. 349.
‘Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic information—even as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings),bad mutations outnumber them—perhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’
‘My recent book resulted from many years of intense study. This involved a complete re-evaluation of everything I thought I knew about evolutionary genetic theory. It systematically examines the problems underlying classic neo-Darwinian theory. The bottom line is that Darwinian theory fails on every level. It fails because: 1) mutations arise faster than selection can eliminate them; 2) mutations are overwhelmingly too subtle to be “selectable”; 3) “biological noise” and “survival of the luckiest” overwhelm selection; 4) bad mutations are physically linked to good mutations,2 so that they cannot be separated in inheritance (to get rid of the bad and keep the good). The result is that all higher genomes must clearly degenerate. This is exactly what we would expect in light of Scripture—with the Fall—and is consistent with the declining life expectancies after the Flood that the Bible records.’ - Dr. John Sanford, Plant Geneticist, Cornell University.
"No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."—*Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 88.
" `Creatures with shriveled-up wings and defective vision, or no eyes, offer poor material for evolutionary progress.' "—*E.W. Macbride, Quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, p. 75.
" `It must be admitted that the direct and complete proof of the utilization of mutation in evolution under natural conditions has not yet been given.' "—*Julian Huxley, quoted in H. Enoch, Evolution or Creation, p. 78.
"As a generation principle, providing the raw material for natural selection, random mutation is inadequate, both in scope and theoretical grounding."—*Jeffrey S. Wicken, "The Generation of Complexity in Evolution: A Thermodynamic and Information-Theoretical Discussion," Journal of Theoretical Biology, p. 349.
"Based on probability factors . . any viable DNA strand having over 84 nucleotides cannot be the result of haphazard mutations. At that stage, the probabilities are 1 in 4.80 x 1050. Such a number, if written out, would read 480,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, 000.
"Mathematicians agree that any requisite number beyond 1050 has, statistically, a zero probability of occurrence."—I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong, p. 205.
"It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutation [one or only a few mutations]."—*Richard Goldschmidt, "Evolution, As Viewed by One Geneticist," American Scientist, p. 94
"Out of 400 mutations that have been provided by Drosophila melanogaster, there is not one that can be called a new species. It does not seem, therefore, that the central problem of evolution can be solved by mutations."—*Maurice Caullery, Genetics and Heredity
"Richard Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [insignificant] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species."—Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried
"Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised."—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe: Where Darwin Went Wrong
"The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics were done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (1964), p. 126.
"Most mutants which arise in any organism are more or less disadvantageous to their possessors. The classical mutants obtained in Drosophila usually show deterioration, breakdown, or disappearance of some organs. Mutants are known which diminish the quantity or destroy the pigment in the eyes, and in the body reduce the wings, eyes, bristles, legs. Many mutants are, in fact lethal to their possessors. Mutants which equal the normal fly in vigor are a minority, and mutants that would make a major improvement of the normal organization in the normal environments are unknown."—*Theodosius Dobzhansky, Evolution, Genetics, and Man
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect-evolution to higher forms of life-result from mutations practically all of which are harmful? - Warren Weaver et al., "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, vol. 123
"Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations... With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent." - David A. Demick, "The Blind Gunman", Impact, no. 308, February 1999.
"Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy."
Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York
Saying goodbye to the Y, Sykes says, doesn’t necessarily spell the end of the human race; cloning requires no sperm, and certain assisted reproduction techniques allow even very damaged sperm to be injected directly into eggs, bypassing nature’s weeding-out process. However, boys born using sperm injection will carry the genetic faults of their father, and the attendant infertility, simply delaying a foregone conclusion." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...eatures/articl e1155329.ece
Why have we not died 100 times over? http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conten...00004/art00167
"It is well known that when s, the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below 1/4 ~ Ne , where Ne is the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is ~ 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the Ne of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/ G less than s less than 1/4 N e . Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates Ne ~ 10 , while G ~ 10 , so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10 , an average individual carries ~ 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be
suboptimal."
The Random Mutant Generator highlights the problem very clearly http://www.randommutation.com/
"The point of all this is very simple: Random mutations are equivalent to noise, and noise only destroys information and degrades functionality.... in the world of digital communication there is no example anywhere of adding noise to a signal and getting a better signal that contains more information and more functionality. The Random Muation Generator is a simple tool that illustrates this with English, but the results are the same regardless of what kind of code you mutate. You could use French or HTML or C Code or DNA code, and the result will always be the same."
"The idea that random mutation creates biological diversity fails computer simulations; it fails if you compute the statistics; and it fails biologically. This observation was confirmed by Theodosius Dobzhansky's fruit fly radiation experiments, Goldschmidt's gypsy moth experiments, and others."
If you want to challenge this post then show me just one paper, book or experiment anywhere in the history of biology that empirically demonstrates and proves that random mutation of DNA produces novel adaptive features (eyes, wings, legs, functional organs); and that the mutations that produced those features were in fact random.
Extraordinary claims requires extraordinary evidence. Saying all life evolved from a primordial cell billions of years ago is an extraordinary claim! So produce the extraordinary evidence!
Reference http://www.creationtruth.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=196&Itemid=196
