SloppyNoodle.com
nav_line
home
nav_line
issues
nav_line
emerse
nav_line
Care
nav_line
about
nav_line

 

SloppyNoodle.com Updates

From my heart to yours Devotion

Darlene Zschech Inspiration



  “Why I am Not an Evolutionist …”

              The Science Lecture Class Handout

 By Andy Carmichael © 2003

Creation School Online with Andy Carmichael is hosted

at the website www.SloppyNoodle.com/ev.html

                 Andy_Ally@hotmail.com

12.     There is no scientific mechanism for any evolution ever to occur

·         “Natural selection by survival of the fittest” is no mechanism for evolution

“Natural selection by survival of the fittest” is the central (but still hypothetical) mechanism of creative change for the theories of evolution. The term “natural selection” is a misnomer – a deliberately misleading term – as “nature” is not a person (and cannot be personified) and so “nature” cannot “select” supposedly good or useful characteristics in an individual. Natural selection by survival of the fittest is more accurately termed “random destruction”, because it is the random elimination or destruction of individuals (and thus their genetic information) from a population. Natural selection can only whittle away what was created. Natural selection thus cannot create any new kind of animal, person or plant. Natural selection takes away more and more, and can of itself create or add nothing :

“But natural selection per se does not work to create new species.”

(Dr Niles Eldredge, evolutionist, paleontologist and Curator of the American Museum of Natural History, 1980 [42] )

“No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it …”

(Dr. Colin Patterson, evolutionist, senior palaeontologist at the British Natural History Museum, 1982 [43] )

The phrase “survival of the fittest” (the assumed “struggle for life”) is also a meaningless tautology as a supposed evolutionist mechanism. Evolutionists define it as follows : those individuals that survive are fit, and those that are fit survive. This says nothing at all. It is a circular definition that simply restates itself, saying merely that “the survivors survive and that is how everything came into existence !” Survival of the fittest simply means that some creatures die sooner than others and so may leave fewer offspring than those of their kind that die slightly later. So it is entirely irrelevant as to how animals, plants and people originate and then self-improve themselves :

“Someone asked how we determine who are the fittest. The answer came back that we determine this by the test of survival; there is no other criterion. But this means that a species survives because it is the fittest and is the fittest because it survives, which is circular reasoning and equivalent to saying that whatever is, is fit. The gist is that some survive and some die, but we knew this at the onset. Nothing has been explained.”

(Dr Norman Macbeth, evolutionist, lawyer from Harvard Law School, Darwin Retried, 1971 [44] )

“I argued that it [natural selection] was a tautology in my book because it seemed to go round in a circle. It was, in effect, defining survival as due to fitness and fitness as due to survival. … I think the phrase [natural selection] is utterly empty. It doesn’t describe anything.”

(Dr. Norman Macbeth, evolutionist and retired lawyer from Harvard Law School, 1982 [45] )

“Of one thing, however, I am certain, and that is that ‘natural selection’ … means nothing more than ‘the survivors survive’.”

(E.W. MacBride, Nature, 1929 [46] )

“There, you do come to what is, in effect, a vacuous statement : Natural selection is that some things leave more offspring than others; and you ask, which leave more offspring than others; and it is those that leave more offspring; and there is nothing more to it than that.

The whole real guts of evolution – which is, how do you come to have horses and tigers, and things – is outside the mathematical theory.”

(Dr C.H. Waddington, evolutionist, 1967 [47] )

·         “Genetic mutations” are no mechanism for evolution

Evolutionists claim that every kind of living and extinct animal, plant and person (somehow) came into existence by genetic mutations of their DNA :

“Ultimately, all variation is, of course, due to mutation.”

(Dr Ernst Mayr, evolutionist and Professor of Zoology in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University, 1966 [48] )

A genetic mutation is a copying error that causes a harmful loss of complex, coded information. All mutations are faulty copies of the original correct genetic instructions. No living or extinct person, plant or animal can reprogram their own DNA to change themselves into a different and improved kind of person, plant or animal. In terms of genetics, a mutation is a mistake in transmission of highly complex hereditary information. Mutations are mutilations. A mutated animal or person is in fact a mutilated animal or person, and not an improved species.

Mutations in genetic material cannot be a mechanism of evolution. All known mutations are lethal, harmful, neutral or reversible. If mutations survive at all, they build up a “genetic load” in the population, reducing its overall viability. Yet evolutionists continue to believe in the existence of positive, beneficial mutations that somehow create brand new, complex genetic information (although they have never seen any). Genetic mutations do not and cannot add anything that was not already in existence and hence cannot cause any kind of evolution.

None of natural selection, survival of the fittest or genetic mutations can even in principle account for the existence of living things as they are all mechanisms of destruction and they all also require pre-existing, fully-formed, reproducing, living people, plants and animals with 100% operative DNA on which to work. Hence they cannot account for the origin, or any improvement, of people, plants and animals. Natural selection, survival of the fittest and genetic mutations delete, destroy, corrupt and eliminate what already exists. As mechanisms only of destruction, they cannot create or bring anything new into existence nor can they improve living (or dead) organisms, as destruction is the opposite of bringing something into existence and is the opposite of improving something.

Natural selection, survival of the fittest and genetic mutations can only destroy what already exists, a conclusion that follows perfectly from the laws of thermodynamics. So evolutionists have not and cannot scientifically answer the issue of origins, namely : How did everything come into existence and where did it all come from ?

“Viewing mutations as degradations is in line with the Second Law of Thermodynamics which states that matter goes from order to disorder.”

(Randall Hedtke, 1984 [49] )

“Apparently most mutations are harmful – that’s an old story – because they foul up in the development process. They are mistakes in copying, that’s what they are.”

(Dr. Niles Eldredge, evolutionist, 1979 [50] )

“A mutation doesn’t produce major new raw material. You don’t make a new species by mutating the species.”

(Professor Stephen Jay Gould, evolutionist, Professor of Geology and Paleontology at Harvard University, 1980 [51] )

“If we say that it is only by chance that they [genetic mutations] are useful, we are still speaking too leniently. In general, they are useless, detrimental, or lethal.”

(Professor W.R. Thompson, Fellow of the Royal Society, evolutionist and entomologist,  in his Introduction to the Centenary Edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species, 1956 [52] )

“Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution … No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”

(Pierre-Paul Grasse, evolutionist and zoologist, Director of the Laboratory of the Evolution of Living Beings at the University of Paris, Head of the Chair of Evolution at the Sorbonne in Paris for 20 years, former President of the French Acadamie des Sciences, 1977 [53] )

Scientists have never found a mutation that has advanced life. But what about sickle-cell anaemia, you may say ? That is a mutation – doesn’t that help the sufferer to be immune to malaria ? Yes, it does, but only by accident and the patient with the sickle cell disease is still anaemic, disadvantaged and not an “improved species”. Mutations retard life rather than improve life. And if the sickle-cell anaemia is inherited from both parents, it is fatal. The mutation responsible for sickle-cell anaemia results in its carrier being immune to malaria only because the life-span of the defective blood cell is shorter than the incubation period of the malaria. This is not due to any improvement in the blood cell. When the defective gene is inherited from both parents, the sufferer usually dies before reaching adulthood. The gene for sickle-cell anemia has built up to high levels in certain African populations, not because it is “beneficial”, but simply because the death rate from sickle-cell anaemia in those areas is slightly less than the death rate from malaria ... To individuals and to the overall population, sickle-cell anaemia is a highly destructive disease and kills about 25% of the people who carry it :

“The resulting disease kills about 25 percent of the population of black humans who are affected. (Evolutionists often like to cite this highly deleterious mutation as a good example of a beneficial mutation because those afflicted with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to die with malaria. To the overall population, however, it is highly destructive.)”

(Luther Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, 1998 [54] )

You can mutate all you like, but you will never “evolve” :

            “Mutation is a pathological process which has had little or nothing to do with evolution.”

(Professor C.P. Martin, evolutionist, McGill University, Montreal, 1953 [55] )

“If the genetic blueprint for an organism is initially optimal – like, say, the design for a new TV set – then mutations appear as damage incurred by wear and tear or misuse. Kicking a damaged TV set might improve its performance but the treatment is not generally recommended. In no way could random – or even well-directed – kicking have been responsible for the origin of the TV set in the first place. But the neo-Darwinian, who asserts that mutations are the raw material of evolution, and the only source of novelty for natural selection to work on, is both denying the existence of an optimal genetic blueprint (or archetype) for a life-form, and accepting ‘kicking’ as a rational means of improving it out of recognition.”

(Michael Pitman, evolutionist, 1984 [56] )

·         “Genetic recombination of chromosomes” is no mechanism for evolution

Genetic recombination is not mutation. It is a well-designed, created part of reproduction and is simply the reshuffling of inherited genetic information to ensure some variation within the offspring. Recombination is so that you can tell your children apart – God does not want everyone looking like clones. Recombination is analogous to playing keys on a (genetic) piano : the same 88 keys or notes of a piano can be played, but different music is heard each time. Merely playing a different combination of keys (i.e. merely playing a different song) on the (genetic) piano cannot account for the origin of the piano in the first place. Or another analogy is that genetic recombination is like shuffling a pack of (genetic) cards. Each hand dealt has a different combination of cards, but no amount of shuffling (i.e. genetic recombinations) can create a thirteen of spades nor can shuffling tell us where the pack of cards came from in the first place.

“It is, therefore, absolutely impossible to build a current evolution on mutations or on recombinations.”

(Professor Nils Heribert-Nilsson, botanist, geneticist and evolutionist, Lund University, Sweden, 1953 [57] )

Some species are classified as new species simply because they have lost genetic material : the flightless rails (marsh hens), the flightless cormorants of the Galapagos Islands and blind cave fish. This is not evolution, it’s entropy.

Advertisment Header




Mercy Ministries

Mercy Ministries Mercy Ministries Australia Mercy Ministries USA Mercy Ministries UK Mercy Ministries Canada

PluggedIn

 

 

copyright