Search This Blog

Sunday, February 10, 2013

Evolution is Mythology!!! Mutations are harmful, not building blocks! Some links and videos included. Leading up to Question Evolution Day!

Mutations are deleterious to organisms, not a means of evolving new features. DNA has an error correcting mechanism built-in to make repairs:

If repairs cannot be made? We do not get new creatures, we get things like CANCER!!!

Darwinism is built on fairy tales.   It is anti-science.   Evolution has always been a joke compared to what actually happens in the real world.

Concerning Information.
Confirming Common Darwinist Lies.

In the real world, organisms are magnificently and incredibly designed, with a complex and sophisticated coding system called DNA, that provides the information needed for both reproduction and also for the operation of cells.   Speciation is variation within kind, it is what happens when the environment is very favorable to certain traits in an organism.   When the environment tends to allow some varieties to live and reproduce while killing off others, then an organism will tend to produce limited varieties in that environment. So we may have a particular size and color of squirrel that survives best in one part of a continent and another size and color may be more beneficial and more likely to survive.  So let's say we have small, dark squirrels in one area and larger reddish-brown squirrels in another area and medium-sized grey squirrels in yet another area.  Is this evolution?   No, because all these organisms simply were selected from pre-existing genetic code within squirrels.   The likelihood is all of these squirrels could mate with each other and, in an environment generally friendly to all forms of squirrels, we would see all colors and sizes of squirrel in the wild in the same area.   Does that make sense?   Because that is what we see in the real world.  

Organisms can speciate rapidly and this is part of the design feature of organisms.  Back in 2006 I posted an article on the rapid speciation in the Poecilla family of fishes (commonly called guppies), among other examples.  After that there were several other posts on the subject.  The point is that we know organisms can change rapidly using information already built-in to the organism.   These rapid changes do not involve mutations.   Darwinists claim that mutations build new organisms, but actually there are no "new" organisms, just varieties of organisms already in existence.  

Genetic Redundancy is a design feature of organisms.  Here is one post on the subject.

Facilitated Variation is another design feature of organisms.  Here is one post.

Genetic Entropy is observed in organisms.  Ignore the reference to Haldane's Dilemma, that was an aside that led to another post and is not directly related.

Meanwhile, Darwinists are exposed as simply being myth-makers.  Here is a post from Creation-Evolution Headlines on the subject:

Evolutionists’ Storytelling Addiction

Posted on January 23, 2013 in Darwin and EvolutionDumb IdeasEarly ManFossilsMammalsMarine BiologyOrigin of LifePhilosophy of Science
For professionals who should be concerned with evidence, many evolutionists are given to rampant speculation.  The tipoff is usually a phrase like “may have,” “could have,” or “conceivably.”
Ritual storytelling:  Nature (23 Jan 2013) suggested the possibility that civilization evolved from rituals related to combat.  “Praying, fighting, dancing, chanting — human rituals could illuminate the growth of community and the origins of civilization.”  But then again, they might not.  Is author Dan Jones confusing cause with effect?  Does the intelligent choice in the minds of the instigators of rituals count for anything, or is Jones really implying that a genetic mutation caused someone to get on their knees and pray?
My dog’s spot:  The leading science sites jumped on a new suggestion that domestic dogs evolved from wolves dining on scrap heaps left by humans (BBC NewsLive SciencePhysOrg).  Proto-Fidos with the ability to digest starches became poodles.  And that, children, is why Muffy begs at the table.  It’s not clear what this tale adds to the corpus of scientific knowledge, since even ardent creationists would point out that some domestic dogs are capable of interbreeding with wolves.  Yet “evolution” was woven throughout the story, as in Erik Axelsson’s remark to the BBC, “So, we think our findings fit well with this theory that the dog evolved on the waste dump.”
Fishy tales:  Speaking of puppies, the pupfish is centerpiece in a story celebrated on PhysOrgas “one of the most comprehensive snapshots of natural selection in the wild” that “demonstrated a key prediction in evolutionary biology.”  So what does the alleged “snapshot of pupfish evolution in action” reveal, specifically?  Nothing Darwinian, that’s for sure.  Chris Marin of UC Davis hybridized fish with artificial selection and made them compete.  That’s how he could allege they are “evolving at an explosively faster rate” than natural populations.  Even so, he only found “stabilizing selection” – small artificially-bred groups getting stranded on fitness peaks, even though he boasted that “We can see a surprisingly complex snapshot of natural selection driving the evolution of new specialized species.”
The just-so story that followed was like watered-down gravy on this already small potato:  “An early burst of variation when fish entered a new environment with little competition could have allowed the shell-eaters and scale-eaters to evolve on San Salvador.”  Astute creationists would surely point out that they’re still pupfish, with less variation than domestic dogs that comprise one species.  They even might underline this admission in the article: “But while the concept [of an adaptive landscape, ‘a common and powerful idea that influences thinking about evolution’] is straightforward, it is much harder to map out such a landscape in the wild.
Tiny bubbles in the OOL:  New Scientist teased its readers to pay for the whole article with these whoppers, in fairy-tale style:
IT BEGAN when something fell apart. Somewhere on Earth, over 3.5 billion years ago,a bubble of fat may have spontaneously broken into smaller ones, giving rise to one of life’s most fundamental properties — the ability to make copies of itself.
That’s according to Jack Szostak of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in Boston, who has demonstrated this simple division in the lab. Versions of it are found in many bacteria today, lending some credence to the theory. The simplified cell division also doesn’t require any genes or the complex machinery modern cells use to divide, which suggests it could have been under way before living organisms appeared.
We can’t be sure that’s what happened, says Jeff Errington of Newcastle University in the UK. “But it’s a very plausible explanation. It actually works.”
Beware when your children see bubbles reproducing in the bathtub.  Something slimy might crawl out.
The hand is quicker than the fin:   What, exactly, is a “pre-hand”?  It’s something like a “post-fin,” according to another evidence-free New Scientist tale, “Zebrafish made to grow pre-hands instead of fins.”  Well, if they were “made to grow” something, that’s intelligent design, but we don’t wish to digress from the story (revealed by its first word in caps):
PERHAPS the little fish embryo shown here is dancing a jig because it has just discovered that it has legs instead of fins. Fossils show that limbs evolved from fins, but a new study shows how it may have happened, live in the lab.
But then,“PERHAPS” it does nothing of the sort.  What would one expect the tortured fish to do when injected with genes from mice that didn’t even appear for hundreds of millions of years in the grand evolutionary scenario?  “Of course, we haven’t been able to grow hands,” the lead magician said, bypassing the little problem that without muscles and brain to operate them, they would have been bad fins long before natural selection could stumble upon good hands.  Nevertheless, the magician kept his dazzle going with sublime visions of the Darwinian land of possibilities: “He speculates that hundreds of millions of years ago, the ancestors of tetrapods began expressing more hoxd13 for some reason and that this could have allowed them to evolve autopods.”
Winner fakes all:  There were winners and losers in another artificial-selection experiment reported on PhysOrg that advertised Darwin’s notorious phrase that launched a thousand ships, “survival of the fittest,” right in the headline.  Apparently, some confident Darwinian at Macquarie University decided to add some Darwinian universal acid to a fish tank to see which sea urchins didn’t die (where’s PETA?)  He justified this cruel act on the grounds that human-caused global warming is acidifying the oceans anyway.  He just wanted to see the effects under controlled conditions; that’s science, right? (Don’t try this at home in the goldfish bowl.)  “Our results suggest that some individuals will exhibit enhanced fertilisation in acidified oceans,supporting the concept of ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ of climate change at an individual level,” Peter Schlegel said, not clarifying the Lamarckian look of this experiment.  One thing everyone can agree on; dead sea urchins don’t do very well at fertilization.
It’s no stretch:  The phrase “it’s no stretch” means someone suspects it is.  Sure enough, a PhysOrg entry extrapolated from foraminifera shells on the seafloor (see background of foram evolution at Evolution News & Views) to human-caused global warming.  For support, he brought in the Red Queen and the Court Jester from Alice in Wonderland as witnesses.  He then “suggests the possibility” that man-made effects can create a tipping point in the climate; from there “It’s no stretch” to worry about “a system thrown out of whack,” the Court Jester chuckled.  Readers can decide whose system is whacked.
Lest readers think that only overly-enthusiastic reporters commit such tale-telling, quoting actual scientists out of context or when they are drunk after the conference sessions, serious journals also have their storytelling addicts.  Two examples from Current Biology serve to illustrate.
Survival of the dumbest:  One Current Biology paper described an artificial-selection experiment where the scientists genetically-modified guppies for larger brains, hoping to re-create some figment of Lucy-to-Charlie (or fish-to-Gish) evolution.  Alas, the bigger-brained guppies in the tank didn’t reproduce as well as the control group.  In “Artificial Selection on Relative Brain Size in the Guppy Reveals Costs and Benefits of Evolving a Larger Brain,” the Swedes had to admit a failure: “Evolution of larger brains leads to smaller guts and lower offspring number.”  To rescue Darwin in this case, they used the power of suggestion to prime readers with visions of possible evolutionary reasons for survival of the dumbest: “This decrease in fertility may therefore be a result of either an evolutionary increase in relative brain size or, alternatively, the change toward a slower life history that allowed these orders to evolve their unusually large brains.”
That stinking feeling:  In a short dispatch in Current Biology, a scientist and an editor worried about why any self-respecting mouse would develop a use for TMA (trimethylamine ), a chemical in urine that has a disgusting smell like rotten fish.  Plants don’t care about the smell, but how could a mouse or rat use the stink for signaling?  It’s only found in male urine in one mouse lineage, but both the males and females have an attraction to it—discounting the suggestion that it acts as a pheromone.  The reader is given a choice of evolutionary stories: “either TMA is a very kinky sex pheromone that attracts both sexes alike or it serves an altogether different function… Alternatively, the change in TMA preference might be innate and thus involve a change at some stage of olfactory processing.”  As for how the phenomenon arose, they ended, “We can only speculate at this point.”
No, they can do more than speculate.  They can demonstrate or shut up.  If they want to speculate, and limit their speculations to Darwinian, materialistic processes, let them join Alice in Wonderland in the English Lit building, where it’s permissible to imagine six impossible things before breakfast.
There are plenty of people who have lists of reasons why Darwinism is a ridiculous concept.   

Here is a guest poster with her ten reasons and a practical explanation for why mutation as a building mechanism is illogical.
Next post we'll add more reasons why Evolution should be questioned, found lacking and cast aside.   But to finish off today's post -
DNA repairs itself, but if it cannot, disease and death are in the future, not evolution!  Here is the most dignified and accurate You Tube video I could find to close the post out...?


Jon W said...


Assuming the conclusion still doesn't produce a valid argument, Radar.

radar said...

that is Jontalk for "You have me dead to rights and I have no answer."

Face it, Jon, this is what we call S-C-I-E-N-C-E. Testing and observation has shown us that mutations break, not build and that DNA works hard to avoid mutations.

We have not seen any mutations add new information during testing on various organisms over the many decades that have passed since Darwin's books began to get promoted by Huxley.

We have shown that the sedimentary rock layers were formed catastrophically and the evidence is in favor of a massive catastrophe far beyond any we have seen. Uniformitarianism is not scientific, it is a fairy tale. Just as the standard geological column is imaginary.

The cell was thought to be some simple "protoplasm" in the days of Darwin. So Darwin has a tiny excuse for believing his own writings. You, however, have no excuse. To believe in Darwinism is to ignore evidence in favor of a cherished belief that is not supported by evidence. It doesn't matter how many believers there are. The cult of Darwin is much bigger than group of scientists who willingly face consequences for denying the Darwinist faith. Yet the numbers of creation and ID scientists continue to increase. I would like to think this is because a real scientist is seeking truth first.

Anonymous said...

"that is Jontalk for "You have me dead to rights and I have no answer.""

Actually it was pretty plain English and made perfect sense exactly the way he said it.

"Face it, Jon, this is what we call S-C-I-E-N-C-E."

Show us where creation scientists have calibrated the dating-related data so it lines up with their hoped-for conclusion and then come back to us and talk about science. An Earth no older than 6000 years is thoroughly falsified. Live with it.

"Testing and observation has shown us that mutations break, not build and that DNA works hard to avoid mutations."

"We have not seen any mutations add new information during testing on various organisms over the many decades that have passed since Darwin's books began to get promoted by Huxley."

Nylon-eating bacteria.

"We have shown that the sedimentary rock layers were formed catastrophically"

What, ALL sedimentary rock layers were actually formed catastrophically? Where and how exactly was this shown? Methinks you're exaggerating and twisting the truth once again.

radar said...

Bacteria eating nylon? That was proven to be a pre-existing ability to the chagrin of Darwinists!

As to the sedimentary rock layers, with virtually no exceptions they are all the result of catastrophic events. All major layers were associated with water, Jon, and I have posted on that in great detail.

I have also posted on the calibration of C-14. If you didn't understand it, go back and read it again? What was not clear? C-14 has a half-life of just over 5,700 years and therefore should not be found in anything older than, say, 50,000 years old. A very sensitive method can claim the ability to go out to 100,000 years. BUT:

1) The C-14 is not yet at equilibrium in the atmosphere, so dates are given that are artificially high due to Darwinist assumptions that are now obviously not true. They supposed the atmosphere had to be older than 30-50,000 years old and that the carbon molecules would be at equilibrium. Nope!

2) C-14 is found in wood and fossils and even diamonds in all layers of sedimentary rock! So much for millions of years!

3) Creationists use indexing by dating items from a known age and then using that to make a calibration to age items using C-14.

4) The Flood was such a radical event that it played havoc with the Earth, causing the magnetic field to reverse several times, causing rocks to exhibit coriolis effects as they were formed by water, splitting the continents and causing the continents to collide and push up radically tall mountain ranges, all with bottom-dwelling sea fossils by the way.

5) Scientists are studying the ways the Flood remade the surface of the globe. Rapid plate subduction and hydroplate theory wind up with pretty much the same results but with different primary causes. All can see that the Flood itself makes age calibration before the Flood more guesswork than science.

radar said...

radar said...

That last URL was to remind Jon that we knew the "Nylon-eating" bacteria did not evolve ten years ago, so bringing it up must be due to his belief we have all forgotten? Bacteria have been shown to share genetic material and be able to make rapid changes to live on wide varieties of food sources while remaining in stasis as an organism.

Anonymous said...

"Creationists use indexing by dating items from a known age and then using that to make a calibration to age items using C-14."

Funny, that's what actual scientists do as well. But actual scientists have no problem lining up the different dating methods next to each other to show a consistent whole.

So where is the creationinst calibration of these data that yields them a global flood about 4,000 years ago and the beginning of the known universe about 6,000 years ago?

Dendrochronology records calibrated to C-14 data alone yield an age of 11,000 years, falsifying YEC.

Anonymous said...

"Bacteria eating nylon? That was proven to be a pre-existing ability to the chagrin of Darwinists!"

Where? It wasn't in the article you linked to.

Please provide a link that shows clearly where and how this was proven.

radar said...

I just provided a link for that. I could provide more. Did you miss this? Or can you not comprehend it?

The second concerns the class of bacteria like the first one listed.

Finally, here is one about why bacteria are still around despite the onslaught of mutations on organisms.