Mutations 3 -- Science Disproves Evolution

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Visible mutations are easily detectable genetic changes such as albinism, dwarfism, and hemophilia. Winchester quantifies the relative frequency of several types of mutations.

�Lethal mutations outnumber viaibles by about 20 to 1. Mutations that have small harmful effects, the detrimental mutations, are even more frequent than the lethal ones.� Winchester, p. 356.

John W. Klotz, Genes, Genesis, and Evolution, 2nd edition, revised (St. Louis: Concordia Publishing House, 1972), pp. 262�265.

�... I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn�t affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance.� George Wald, as quoted by Murray Eden, �Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,� Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, pp. 18�19.

However, evolutionists have taught for years that hemoglobin alpha changed through mutations into hemoglobin beta. This would require, at a minimum, 120 point mutations. In other words, the improbability Wald refers to above must be raised to the 120th power to produce just this one protein!

�Even if we didn�t have a great deal of data on this point, we could still be quite sure on theoretical grounds that mutants would usually be detrimental. For a mutation is a random change of a highly organized, reasonably smoothly functioning living body. A random change in the highly integrated system of chemical processes which constitute life is almost certain to impair it�just as a random interchange of connections in a television set is not likely to improve the picture.� James F. Crow (Professor of Genetics, University of Wisconsin), �Genetic Effects of Radiation,� Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Vol. 14, January 1958, pp. 19�20.

�The one systematic effect of mutation seems to be a tendency towards degeneration ...� [emphasis in original] Sewall Wright, �The Statistical Consequences of Mendelian Heredity in Relation to Speciation,� The New Systematics, editor Julian Huxley (London: Oxford University Press, 1949), p. 174.

Wright then concludes that other factors must also have been involved, because he believes evolution happened.

�Each mutation occurring alone would be wiped out before it could be combined with the others. They are all interdependent. The doctrine that their coming together was due to a series of blind coincidences is an affront not only to common sense but to the basic principles of scientific explanation.� Arthur Koestler, The Ghost in the Machine (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1968), p. 129.