A pompous reader of IPatriot (Sept 29th), brainwashed by the evolution hypothesis, talked in riddles about mutations and natural selection as if they led to new species. Hm. So, here’s some information. (Note that I always try to be non-technical, so as to reach more readers). It won’t satisfy an ardent evolutionist, but it is real science.
First, a quote from Dr Robert W Carter, a marine biologist: “Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of ‘biological information’. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutations produce new information? Yes, depending on what you mean by ‘new’ and ‘information’. Can they account for the evolution of all life on Earth? No!” (‘Can mutations create new information?’, creation.com)
A mutation can be theoretically good, or bad. Mutations change the sequence of letters (base pairs) in the genome. Some mutations are a single letter swap (e.g. C changed to T). Or, letters can be inserted or deleted. Most mutations are of this latter type. But, a few are more complex. And, to add to this, there is a difference between mutation and ‘designed variation’. Most people, for example, share single letter variations, and this implies the variations are designed. Any deletions or DNA insertions lead to rapid genomic decay. And “The ubiquity of large, unique deletions in the various human subpopulations worldwide is evidence for rapid erosion or corruption of genetic information, through mutation.” (Carter).
Having said that, the critical reader implied that creationists believe in fixity of species. Some do (for historical reasons), but most do not. It is just an evolution myth. DNA can change by a variety of means, including mutations. The point of my article about bed-bugs was simply that in that case (and similar ones) there was no new species, just natural selection omitting thin skinned bugs.
“Natural selection is an observable process that is often purported to be the underlying mechanism of unobservable molecules-to-man evolution.” (Dr G Purdom, molecular geneticist). When beach mice changed coat colour it was cited as evidence of evolution (like the butterflies whose wings became brown due to smut in the air during the industrial revolution in the UK, but changed back again when the air was cleaner. Nothing to do with evolution). In reality the mice coats changed colour by natural selection, “which is merely selecting information that already exists.” (Purdom). Evolution cannot create new genomic information., and the critic I refer to above suggested a good example of evolution is the way microbes have resisted antibiotics. No, again, it is an example of natural selection (remember, Purdom is a molecular geneticist, so she should know). Sadly, many evolutionists confuse this with their chosen deception, evolution.
Another evolution myth is that “natural selection is the primary mechanism that drives evolution.” But, natural selection does not drive molecules-to-man evolution. This is because natural selection cannot add new information to the genome! Natural selection can only work with existing information; it cannot originate information. Any diversity occurs within the kinds created at the beginning.
There is a great deal more to say about this subject, but it is enough to say (without boring the pants off readers) that evolution does not exist, and evolutionists confuse natural selection with evolution. This they have to do to continue believing in what is patently unbelievable and impossible. That is, they have to keep spinning lies in order to maintain the original deception that spilled from Darwin.
As I always advise my students – don’t be unnerved by the claims of evolution – it is all bluff, using many words as a smoke-screen to hide their deficiency. To put it another way, the critic is spouting rubbish. He/she can continue to argue if he/she wishes, but all that it would prove is tenacity in the face of complete foolishness. The science does not support evolution, no matter how many words are used. (As I have said before, let critics argue with real scientists at creation.com and discover that their old folk-lore will not last very long!).Tags: evolution