Well we’ve learned how gradualism is farce. Now let’s shift gears and learn how random mutations that supposedly add beneficial information to the genome is also a farce. (Yes, at the risk of being called a quote-miner I will continue to use quotes to back up my assertions so I will not be accused of not knowing what I'm talking about or spreading false, undocumented information.)
The fact is that natural selection + random mutations has a combined I.Q. of ZERO. NS is a largely random, unintelligent phenomenon, as are random mutations. Thus, the theory is wearing an intellectual dunce cap because it has no mechanism for creating beneficial information.
At first sight, however, the Theory of Evolution is an elegant theory. Not only that, but it’s got the benefit of some of the world’s greatest minds working on and devising ways to keep it afloat so that the vast majority of the population can continue to be snow-blinded. The problem is, however, that everything about this theory crumbles when it is realized that the biological mechanism of random mutations is a complete and utter fairytale.
According to Toe the population is supposedly the receiver of information. And this can only happen through random mutations. (This is why the theory MUST require gradualism)
If one ever investigates evolution he’ll find that mutations are the least talked-about aspect of the theory. Evolutionists LOVE talking about old bones and smelling, rotting carcasses, but when it comes to the mechanics of their theory, they often resort to little more than hand-waving….and this is because they cannot offer even one example of a random mutation that adds beneficial information to the genome. (when there should be a gazillion scientifically tested and proven examples) Instead, they rattle on for pages about mutations that are deleterious….or they’ll go on and on about how a mutation can lead to a leg sticking out of the head of a fly or how mutations can cause disease. But what does any of this have to do with evolution? The fact is, they have not even ONE example of a random mutation that adds beneficial information to the genome. And they certainly do not have an example of a mutation that can lead to cumulative selection – the bedrock of their whole theory.
Not even one (random) mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. Spetner
So right off the bat we’re expected to have blind faith in a miracle that’s never been seen, proven, tested – or even witnessed. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
(Due to the body’s proofreading mechanism)…The rarity of copying errors is a problem for Toe. The average rate of copying errors depends on the organism. In bacteria the mutation rate per nucleotide is between 0.1 and 10 per billion transcriptions…But in all other forms of life the rate is smaller. For organisms other than bacteria, the mutation rate is between 0.01 and 1 per billion (Grosse et al. 1984). Spetner
So how does a theory explain rapid biological changes in a population when it has a mutation of rate of possibly 0.01 per billion? And who’s to say that one small nucleotide will make any difference what-so-ever in an animal’s ability to breed? The fact is, the effect would be invisible and would not have any effect at all on the animal’s performance.
Also, when natural selection selects for or against an individual within the population, it has to accept or reject the genome as a whole, which includes almost 6 billion nucleotides. NS, in fact never sees, nor acts on individual nucleotides. Nucleotides, in fact, have very little effect on the organism, yet that’s how evolutionists believe that organisms build up over time…one nucleotide at a time. But this is just a wild (and wrong) assumption, as seen here:
We now know that human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million. These linkage blocks are inherited as a single unit, and never break apart. This totally negates one of the most fundamental assumptions of the theorists – that each nucleotide can be viewed as an individually selectable unit. Dr. J.C. Sanford (geneticist) (Of course this annihilates the whole theory as well.)
And as I have stated before, evolutionists are afraid of testing animals. They’re afraid to test to see if individual animals quickly change phenotypes as a result of an environmental change. (I challenge anyone to prove me wrong with a link.) And the reason for this is they do not accept the notion that the environment can cause a mutation. Thus, they simply chicken out when it comes to any testing that would falsify their theory. However, what they DO do, is resort to confusing people by playing around with bacteria and other assorted organisms in the lab. They figure the majority of the population won’t bother to investigate the legitimacy of the claims that bacterial resistance proves evolution. They assume people will just take geneticists’ and chemists’ word for it.
The fact is, however, that bacterial resistance is just as much a non-random phenomenon as an animal changing its color due to an environmental shift. There is simply no other explanation as to why science is so obsessed on laboratory experiments, yet completely and totally neglects similar experiments on real animals. It’s so glaringly obvious, and in my opinion, it’s an embarrassment for the scientific establishment. This alone speaks volumes because it proves they are hiding something.
But in regards to bacteria:
If we look into these experiments in detail (bacteria restance, et al.) we see that no new information got into the genome. Indeed, it turns out that each of those mutations actually lost information. They made the gene less specific. Therefore, none of them can play the role of small steps that are supposed to lead to macroevolution. Spetner
Were it not for its defenses (proofreading mechanisms) mutations would in no time destroy all genetic texts. The effect (of mutations) is in all circumstances is to demolish. To rely on a rare, fortunate mistake is a poor resource, quite apart from the fact that transgressions of the kind needed by Darwinian evolution have never been documented. Sermonti
Yet I am still not convinced there is a single, crystal-clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information. There are certainly examples of mutations which have been described as “beneficial”, but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information, but rather have destroyed it. Sanford
“but but but but but….what about the nylon bug????” – The fact is, this may or may not be adding information (it is still up in the air at this point)….but the problem for evolutionists is, like bacterial resistance, it is still a NON-RANDOM mutation…and the only reason the mutation occurred is because the organism was physically put in the presence of an outside influence; ie…the environment induced the mutation. It’s no different -- in theory -- than putting a fish in a different environment and watching it change colors…
http://www.mpks.org/faq/ans128.shtml
The resistant bacterium has not evolved – in fact it has digressed genetically and is defective. Such a mutant strain is rapidly replaced by “superior” (i.e. natural) bacteria as soon as the antibiotic is removed. Another example would be the hairless Chihuahua dog. In extreme heat, reduction of size and loss of hair may be useful adaptation, but this involves degeneration. Sanford
And this is more important than it may seem. The fact is, it’s not just bacteria – but all of life is in a state of constant degeneration via mutations.
…Our species is dying. The theory of Evolution is wrong. Information decays. Genomes decay. Life is not going up up up – it is going down down down. Selection does not create information, and at best can only slow its progress. Sanford
Even one of evolutionists’ favorite examples for “deliberate” mutations, radiation, has a negative, degenerating effect on the crops it effected. Thus, once again, how could this possibly serve a vital role in evolution???? – which leads me to wonder why would they even bother talking about it in all their literature??? Deception? Are they THAT starved for emamples? :
A huge number of small, sterile, sick, deformed, aberrant plants were produced. However, from all this effort, almost no meaningful crop improvement resulted. The effort was for the most part an enormous failure, and was almost entirely abandoned. Why? It was because even with all those billions of mutations, there were no significant new beneficial mutations arising. Sanford
This theory is dead. It amazes me that so many people have fallen for it.
Dr. J.C Sanford -- Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome
Dr. Lee Spetner -- Not By Chance
Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti -- Why is a Fly Not a Horse
The fact is that natural selection + random mutations has a combined I.Q. of ZERO. NS is a largely random, unintelligent phenomenon, as are random mutations. Thus, the theory is wearing an intellectual dunce cap because it has no mechanism for creating beneficial information.
At first sight, however, the Theory of Evolution is an elegant theory. Not only that, but it’s got the benefit of some of the world’s greatest minds working on and devising ways to keep it afloat so that the vast majority of the population can continue to be snow-blinded. The problem is, however, that everything about this theory crumbles when it is realized that the biological mechanism of random mutations is a complete and utter fairytale.
According to Toe the population is supposedly the receiver of information. And this can only happen through random mutations. (This is why the theory MUST require gradualism)
If one ever investigates evolution he’ll find that mutations are the least talked-about aspect of the theory. Evolutionists LOVE talking about old bones and smelling, rotting carcasses, but when it comes to the mechanics of their theory, they often resort to little more than hand-waving….and this is because they cannot offer even one example of a random mutation that adds beneficial information to the genome. (when there should be a gazillion scientifically tested and proven examples) Instead, they rattle on for pages about mutations that are deleterious….or they’ll go on and on about how a mutation can lead to a leg sticking out of the head of a fly or how mutations can cause disease. But what does any of this have to do with evolution? The fact is, they have not even ONE example of a random mutation that adds beneficial information to the genome. And they certainly do not have an example of a mutation that can lead to cumulative selection – the bedrock of their whole theory.
Not even one (random) mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the genome. That surely shows that there are not the millions upon millions of potential mutations the theory demands. There may well not be any. The failure to observe even one mutation that adds information is more than just a failure to find support for the theory. It is evidence against the theory. Spetner
So right off the bat we’re expected to have blind faith in a miracle that’s never been seen, proven, tested – or even witnessed. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg.
(Due to the body’s proofreading mechanism)…The rarity of copying errors is a problem for Toe. The average rate of copying errors depends on the organism. In bacteria the mutation rate per nucleotide is between 0.1 and 10 per billion transcriptions…But in all other forms of life the rate is smaller. For organisms other than bacteria, the mutation rate is between 0.01 and 1 per billion (Grosse et al. 1984). Spetner
So how does a theory explain rapid biological changes in a population when it has a mutation of rate of possibly 0.01 per billion? And who’s to say that one small nucleotide will make any difference what-so-ever in an animal’s ability to breed? The fact is, the effect would be invisible and would not have any effect at all on the animal’s performance.
Also, when natural selection selects for or against an individual within the population, it has to accept or reject the genome as a whole, which includes almost 6 billion nucleotides. NS, in fact never sees, nor acts on individual nucleotides. Nucleotides, in fact, have very little effect on the organism, yet that’s how evolutionists believe that organisms build up over time…one nucleotide at a time. But this is just a wild (and wrong) assumption, as seen here:
We now know that human nucleotides exist in large linked clusters or blocks, ranging in size from 10,000 to a million. These linkage blocks are inherited as a single unit, and never break apart. This totally negates one of the most fundamental assumptions of the theorists – that each nucleotide can be viewed as an individually selectable unit. Dr. J.C. Sanford (geneticist) (Of course this annihilates the whole theory as well.)
And as I have stated before, evolutionists are afraid of testing animals. They’re afraid to test to see if individual animals quickly change phenotypes as a result of an environmental change. (I challenge anyone to prove me wrong with a link.) And the reason for this is they do not accept the notion that the environment can cause a mutation. Thus, they simply chicken out when it comes to any testing that would falsify their theory. However, what they DO do, is resort to confusing people by playing around with bacteria and other assorted organisms in the lab. They figure the majority of the population won’t bother to investigate the legitimacy of the claims that bacterial resistance proves evolution. They assume people will just take geneticists’ and chemists’ word for it.
The fact is, however, that bacterial resistance is just as much a non-random phenomenon as an animal changing its color due to an environmental shift. There is simply no other explanation as to why science is so obsessed on laboratory experiments, yet completely and totally neglects similar experiments on real animals. It’s so glaringly obvious, and in my opinion, it’s an embarrassment for the scientific establishment. This alone speaks volumes because it proves they are hiding something.
But in regards to bacteria:
If we look into these experiments in detail (bacteria restance, et al.) we see that no new information got into the genome. Indeed, it turns out that each of those mutations actually lost information. They made the gene less specific. Therefore, none of them can play the role of small steps that are supposed to lead to macroevolution. Spetner
Were it not for its defenses (proofreading mechanisms) mutations would in no time destroy all genetic texts. The effect (of mutations) is in all circumstances is to demolish. To rely on a rare, fortunate mistake is a poor resource, quite apart from the fact that transgressions of the kind needed by Darwinian evolution have never been documented. Sermonti
Yet I am still not convinced there is a single, crystal-clear example of a known mutation which unambiguously created information. There are certainly examples of mutations which have been described as “beneficial”, but most of these beneficial mutations have not created information, but rather have destroyed it. Sanford
“but but but but but….what about the nylon bug????” – The fact is, this may or may not be adding information (it is still up in the air at this point)….but the problem for evolutionists is, like bacterial resistance, it is still a NON-RANDOM mutation…and the only reason the mutation occurred is because the organism was physically put in the presence of an outside influence; ie…the environment induced the mutation. It’s no different -- in theory -- than putting a fish in a different environment and watching it change colors…
http://www.mpks.org/faq/ans128.shtml
The resistant bacterium has not evolved – in fact it has digressed genetically and is defective. Such a mutant strain is rapidly replaced by “superior” (i.e. natural) bacteria as soon as the antibiotic is removed. Another example would be the hairless Chihuahua dog. In extreme heat, reduction of size and loss of hair may be useful adaptation, but this involves degeneration. Sanford
And this is more important than it may seem. The fact is, it’s not just bacteria – but all of life is in a state of constant degeneration via mutations.
…Our species is dying. The theory of Evolution is wrong. Information decays. Genomes decay. Life is not going up up up – it is going down down down. Selection does not create information, and at best can only slow its progress. Sanford
Even one of evolutionists’ favorite examples for “deliberate” mutations, radiation, has a negative, degenerating effect on the crops it effected. Thus, once again, how could this possibly serve a vital role in evolution???? – which leads me to wonder why would they even bother talking about it in all their literature??? Deception? Are they THAT starved for emamples? :
A huge number of small, sterile, sick, deformed, aberrant plants were produced. However, from all this effort, almost no meaningful crop improvement resulted. The effort was for the most part an enormous failure, and was almost entirely abandoned. Why? It was because even with all those billions of mutations, there were no significant new beneficial mutations arising. Sanford
This theory is dead. It amazes me that so many people have fallen for it.
Dr. J.C Sanford -- Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome
Dr. Lee Spetner -- Not By Chance
Dr. Giuseppe Sermonti -- Why is a Fly Not a Horse
