110,311
edits
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 52: | Line 52: | ||
</center> | </center> | ||
== | == New information == | ||
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 | 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 into the genome of an [[organism]]. However, in virtually all cases, new alleles originate from pre-existing genes already present, and merely examples of what can be defined as built-in plasticity or variation within the [[created kinds]]. Merely shuffling of pre-existing genes within evolutionary thought is woefully inadequate to explain the massive change of molecules-to-man. | ||
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. | ||
Obviously mutations can indeed cause dramatic changes. Many experiments have been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila) where poisons and radiation induced mutations. However, the problem is that they are always deleterious. The Drosophila experiments showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but these were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Therefore, these flies would be eliminated by natural selection. Even in the case of mutations which can change the amount of DNA possessed by an organism, an increase in the amount of DNA does not result in increased function. Biophysicist Dr. [[Lee Spetner]] in his book, ''[http://store.nwcreation.net/notbychshmot.html Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution]'', analyzed examples of mutational changes that evolutionists claimed were increases in information, and demonstrated that they were actually examples of loss of specificity, meaning loss of information. | Obviously mutations can indeed cause dramatic changes. Many experiments have been performed on fruit flies (Drosophila) where poisons and radiation induced mutations. However, the problem is that they are always deleterious. The Drosophila experiments showed an extra pair of wings on a fly, but these were a hindrance to flying because there are no accompanying muscles. Therefore, these flies would be eliminated by natural selection. Even in the case of mutations which can change the amount of DNA possessed by an organism, an increase in the amount of DNA does not result in increased function. Biophysicist Dr. [[Lee Spetner]] in his book, ''[http://store.nwcreation.net/notbychshmot.html Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution]'', analyzed examples of mutational changes that evolutionists claimed were increases in information, and demonstrated that they were actually examples of loss of specificity, meaning loss of information. | ||
{{cquote|In all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. … All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it." - Spetner}} | {{cquote|In all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. … All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it." - Spetner}} | ||
== Mathematical challenges == | |||
What has been known for years by the evolution and creation science communities is the severe lack of mathematical probability of related mutational change. This is the way by | What has been known for years by the evolution and creation science communities is the severe lack of mathematical probability of related mutational change. This is the way by chich production of truly new biological structures, or essentially molecule-to-man type of change that Darwinian evolution proposes. | ||
First and foremost, mutations either beneficial, negative or neutral are rare instances. They happen on average about once in every 10 million duplications of the DNA molecule (10<sup>7</sup>, a one followed by 7 zeroes). The problem comes when following the evolutionary paradigm and ultimately having to rely on hundreds if not thousands of related mutations. | First and foremost, mutations either beneficial, negative or neutral are rare instances. They happen on average about once in every 10 million duplications of the DNA molecule (10<sup>7</sup>, a one followed by 7 zeroes). The problem comes when following the evolutionary paradigm and ultimately having to rely on hundreds if not thousands of related mutations. | ||
Line 76: | Line 75: | ||
Calculations have been done and research published in the ''Journal of Molecular Biology'' by Douglas Axe, a [[protein]] scientist. He shows just how exceptionally rare the chance of getting certain working protein sequences can be let alone whole genomic structure evolution from fish to man as ultimately predicted. In other words, as Dr. Axe wrote regarding the probability it is, "''less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.''" <ref>D.D. Axe, “''Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds'',” Journal of Molecular Biology, 341(5) (2004):1295–1315</ref> | Calculations have been done and research published in the ''Journal of Molecular Biology'' by Douglas Axe, a [[protein]] scientist. He shows just how exceptionally rare the chance of getting certain working protein sequences can be let alone whole genomic structure evolution from fish to man as ultimately predicted. In other words, as Dr. Axe wrote regarding the probability it is, "''less than one in a trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.''" <ref>D.D. Axe, “''Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds'',” Journal of Molecular Biology, 341(5) (2004):1295–1315</ref> | ||
==Mutation load== | |||
Although beneficial mutations are theoretically possible, [[natural selection]] does not act at the molecular level, but rather it operates only at the level of the [[organism]]. It selects only those mutations that produce a physiological change, which alters the survival or reproductive rate of the organism. As such, for every rare beneficial mutation that might occur, countless numbers of harmful mutations are accumulating within the genome of the organism - producing what is known as a "mutation load". | Although beneficial mutations are theoretically possible, [[natural selection]] does not act at the molecular level, but rather it operates only at the level of the [[organism]]. It selects only those mutations that produce a physiological change, which alters the survival or reproductive rate of the organism. As such, for every rare beneficial mutation that might occur, countless numbers of harmful mutations are accumulating within the genome of the organism - producing what is known as a "mutation load". | ||