A
Asyncritus
Guest
Speaking of mutations, I came across this recently in Darwin-watch. (http://www.darwinism-watch.com/index.php?git=makale&makale_id=2048)
It has a lot to say about the subject, and shows quite clearly that they cannot produce anything new.
I was particularly interested in their remarks about the production of antibiotic resistance.
> > The invalidity of the famous Darwinist claim that ''useful mutations do exist.''
The false idea that useful mutations exist is a classic Darwinist claim.
Although the whole scientific world knows, with absolute scientific evidence, that mutations have a destructive or fatal effect, this claim is still persistently made, out of a fear of humiliation. Because Darwinism is a theory that depends totally on mutations.
All Darwinists know that if the destructive effect were to be mentioned just once, that would spell the end of Darwinism. It is for that reason they try to give the impression, citing invalid and utterly pitiful examples, that mutations can be beneficial.
But this is a complete deception. - As we have set out many times before, mutations have a net harmful effect, with only 1% being neutral, though the latest scientific research has shown that even these can produce long-term damage in the organism.[1]
The net harmful effect of mutations is not a psychological defense mechanism, but an explicit truth revealed by science. - If Darwinists object to this, then they are directly flying in the face of science. Because this is not a matter of opinion, but an absolute scientific fact. - It is impossible for mutations to bestow any useful characteristic.
Under normal conditions, everything in a living body exhibits complete regularity, order and symmetry. In addition, these systems co-exist with the most delicate balances and exhibit a glorious complexity right down to the finest detail.
Mutations are random interventions, such as with radiation, and mean breakages, impairments and dislocations.
They INEVITABLY DAMAGE these extraordinarily complex systems, with their regularity, symmetry and order. It is illogical and a violation of science to maintain anything else. -
The results at Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were all the results of mutations. Under the effect of mutations, organisms with regular structures either died or suffered severe damage, and this harmful effect even manifested itself in subsequent generations.
Darwinists generally cite various examples of immunity in order to try to corroborate their claims that “beneficial mutations do exist.” But these examples all consist of a variation or impairment in bacteria or immune cells. -
Sometimes, a dislocation in a single DNA nucleotide, or base, can bestow immunity to an antibiotic on a micro-organism. But although this may be useful to the micro-organism, IT IS NOT A BENEFICIAL MUTATION.
Because the mutation in question has actually harmed the micro-organism.
The ribosome sequence belonging to the micro-organism has been impaired, and it prevents the antibiotic binding to the organism by damaging the lock and key harmony.
In other words, rather than there being any novelty in the micro-organism, we are looking at a loss of information. -
Mutations are literally like firing at a regular structure with a machine gun. Opening fire on a healthy structure will entirely do away with that structure.
The fact that one bullet has no effect or destroys an existing infection in the body changes nothing. The organism will already have been killed by the other 99 bullets hitting it. -
The example that Darwinists cite with such examples is like a bullet healing the body by destroying a single infection. The organism is devastated by mutations, but Darwinists concentrate on the one that heals this infection. -
Since the subject of mutations constitutes one of the most damaging points for Darwinists, they engage in demagoguery by depicting minor instances of variation or the effects examined above as major evidence.
The fact is, however, that the adherents of evolution, who maintain that all living things acquired their present symmetrical and complex structures by way of evolution, have to be able to cite examples of mutations that take place one after the other and are all beneficial, and that also bestow new information on the organism. -
What is more, Darwinists also have to provide evidence for the scenario of one living thing’s physiology turning into that of another life form through mutation at the macro level.
BUT THEY CANNOT EVEN CONTEMPLATE PRODUCING SUCH EVIDENCE.
Because as they know full well, mutations destroy and ruin and occasionally entirely destroy the organism concerned. -
In addition, we need to make the following point very clear: mutations can never bestow any new data on an organism that is not already in its genome. That is impossible.
The examples alleged to have “added new information” are all misleading. No new genetic information is ever added. All that happens is that information already existing in a living thing’s genes starts to be used by becoming more visible as a result of variations. -
Breaks and dislocations in the bases that make up DNA CAN NEVER PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION. They do not equate to information that did not already exist being bestowed on a living thing.
Darwinists are without doubt well aware of this. But they insist on depicting dislocations in genetic bases as new data. This is an example of Darwinist demagoguery.
It has a lot to say about the subject, and shows quite clearly that they cannot produce anything new.
I was particularly interested in their remarks about the production of antibiotic resistance.
> > The invalidity of the famous Darwinist claim that ''useful mutations do exist.''
The false idea that useful mutations exist is a classic Darwinist claim.
Although the whole scientific world knows, with absolute scientific evidence, that mutations have a destructive or fatal effect, this claim is still persistently made, out of a fear of humiliation. Because Darwinism is a theory that depends totally on mutations.
All Darwinists know that if the destructive effect were to be mentioned just once, that would spell the end of Darwinism. It is for that reason they try to give the impression, citing invalid and utterly pitiful examples, that mutations can be beneficial.
But this is a complete deception. - As we have set out many times before, mutations have a net harmful effect, with only 1% being neutral, though the latest scientific research has shown that even these can produce long-term damage in the organism.[1]
The net harmful effect of mutations is not a psychological defense mechanism, but an explicit truth revealed by science. - If Darwinists object to this, then they are directly flying in the face of science. Because this is not a matter of opinion, but an absolute scientific fact. - It is impossible for mutations to bestow any useful characteristic.
Under normal conditions, everything in a living body exhibits complete regularity, order and symmetry. In addition, these systems co-exist with the most delicate balances and exhibit a glorious complexity right down to the finest detail.
Mutations are random interventions, such as with radiation, and mean breakages, impairments and dislocations.
They INEVITABLY DAMAGE these extraordinarily complex systems, with their regularity, symmetry and order. It is illogical and a violation of science to maintain anything else. -
The results at Chernobyl, Nagasaki and Hiroshima were all the results of mutations. Under the effect of mutations, organisms with regular structures either died or suffered severe damage, and this harmful effect even manifested itself in subsequent generations.
Darwinists generally cite various examples of immunity in order to try to corroborate their claims that “beneficial mutations do exist.” But these examples all consist of a variation or impairment in bacteria or immune cells. -
Sometimes, a dislocation in a single DNA nucleotide, or base, can bestow immunity to an antibiotic on a micro-organism. But although this may be useful to the micro-organism, IT IS NOT A BENEFICIAL MUTATION.
Because the mutation in question has actually harmed the micro-organism.
The ribosome sequence belonging to the micro-organism has been impaired, and it prevents the antibiotic binding to the organism by damaging the lock and key harmony.
In other words, rather than there being any novelty in the micro-organism, we are looking at a loss of information. -
Mutations are literally like firing at a regular structure with a machine gun. Opening fire on a healthy structure will entirely do away with that structure.
The fact that one bullet has no effect or destroys an existing infection in the body changes nothing. The organism will already have been killed by the other 99 bullets hitting it. -
The example that Darwinists cite with such examples is like a bullet healing the body by destroying a single infection. The organism is devastated by mutations, but Darwinists concentrate on the one that heals this infection. -
Since the subject of mutations constitutes one of the most damaging points for Darwinists, they engage in demagoguery by depicting minor instances of variation or the effects examined above as major evidence.
The fact is, however, that the adherents of evolution, who maintain that all living things acquired their present symmetrical and complex structures by way of evolution, have to be able to cite examples of mutations that take place one after the other and are all beneficial, and that also bestow new information on the organism. -
What is more, Darwinists also have to provide evidence for the scenario of one living thing’s physiology turning into that of another life form through mutation at the macro level.
BUT THEY CANNOT EVEN CONTEMPLATE PRODUCING SUCH EVIDENCE.
Because as they know full well, mutations destroy and ruin and occasionally entirely destroy the organism concerned. -
In addition, we need to make the following point very clear: mutations can never bestow any new data on an organism that is not already in its genome. That is impossible.
The examples alleged to have “added new information” are all misleading. No new genetic information is ever added. All that happens is that information already existing in a living thing’s genes starts to be used by becoming more visible as a result of variations. -
Breaks and dislocations in the bases that make up DNA CAN NEVER PRODUCE NEW INFORMATION. They do not equate to information that did not already exist being bestowed on a living thing.
Darwinists are without doubt well aware of this. But they insist on depicting dislocations in genetic bases as new data. This is an example of Darwinist demagoguery.
Last edited by a moderator:
