Check users, creationist, Administrators
22,649
edits
Mutation: Difference between revisions
From CreationWiki, the encyclopedia of creation science
Jump to navigationJump to search
m
→Mutations and Evolution
| Line 55: | Line 55: | ||
It is clear that new [[gene]] [[alleles]] are accumulating in populations today, but there are two possible sources for these changes; mutations, and intentional changes introduced by [[genetic recombination]]. The [[theory of evolution]] attributes the continued production of genetic diversity to mutations, but [[evolutionists]] overlook the fact that the [[cell]] was [[intelligent design|intelligently designed]]. The cellular machinery was programmed to perform a level of self genetic engineering, and is editing genes systematically so that organisms can [[adaptation|adapt]] to a wide variety of environmental conditions. | It is clear that new [[gene]] [[alleles]] are accumulating in populations today, but there are two possible sources for these changes; mutations, and intentional changes introduced by [[genetic recombination]]. The [[theory of evolution]] attributes the continued production of genetic diversity to mutations, but [[evolutionists]] overlook the fact that the [[cell]] was [[intelligent design|intelligently designed]]. The cellular machinery was programmed to perform a level of self genetic engineering, and is editing genes systematically so that organisms can [[adaptation|adapt]] to a wide variety of environmental conditions. | ||
Evolutionists contend that mutation, acted upon by [[natural selection]] is the mechanism for evolutionary advancement. There are many examples put forward by evolutionary biologists that attempt to show how new genes have been introduced to the genome of an [[organism]]. However the new information that is contained in the organism, can be seen in virtually all cases as coming from pre-existing genes already present or what can be defined as built-in plasticity or variation within originally [[created kinds]] of [[animals]]. Merely shuffling of pre-existing genes within evolutionary thought is woefully inadequate to explain the massive change of molecules-to-man. Especially when in most examples it is often unknown what process is actually responsible for the creation of this new genetic material | Evolutionists contend that mutation, acted upon by [[natural selection]] is the mechanism for evolutionary advancement. There are many examples put forward by evolutionary biologists that attempt to show how new genes have been introduced to the genome of an [[organism]]. However the new information that is contained in the organism, can be seen in virtually all cases as coming from pre-existing genes already present or what can be defined as built-in plasticity or variation within originally [[created kinds]] of [[animals]]. Merely shuffling of pre-existing genes within evolutionary thought is woefully inadequate to explain the massive change of molecules-to-man. Especially when in most examples it is often unknown what process is actually responsible for the creation of this new genetic material. | ||
Despite the few examples of genetic mutations that increase the information in the genome, it is unrealistic to assume that this information would assemble in the first place because there would be no genetic information for mutations to act upon. New beneficial types of structures and functions not already resident in the gene pool of the [[species]] are highly unlikely through the process of mutation. This is to say that mutations are not a reasonable means of producing cascading morphological change and to suggest that the evidence would support the neodarwinian mechanism is unfounded. | Despite the few examples of genetic mutations that increase the information in the genome, it is unrealistic to assume that this information would assemble in the first place because there would be no genetic information for mutations to act upon. New beneficial types of structures and functions not already resident in the gene pool of the [[species]] are highly unlikely through the process of mutation. This is to say that mutations are not a reasonable means of producing cascading morphological change and to suggest that the evidence would support the neodarwinian mechanism is unfounded. | ||
