They believe faithfully that this process could actually produce all the thousands of magnificently functioning attributes of the millions of species that exist.
But does this really make rational sense when you study the truth about mutation, not just assume what is possible “in theory”.
When you go to the dentist and have to get X-rays on your teeth, they put a lead vest on you to shield your heart. Why is that? The reason is to prevent mutations of your cells. Another term for it is cancer.
There is a big scare in the media about a hole in the ozone layer around the earth. Why? What's the big deal? It's because if there is less ozone to protect us, there will be more mutations going on, more sickness, more disease.
Most states have a law against getting married to your first cousin. Why? That's because inbreeding of close relatives increases the likelihood of genetic mutations. One famous one is hemophilia.
Every year the "Flu Season" strikes with a new mutated version of last year's flu. Is this a good thing?
If you think about it, you already know that almost all mutation is a bad thing. The odds of bad things happening as a result of a mutation are thousands of times greater than good things happening.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, a prominent evolutionary biologist [1], spent years irradiating fruit flies for thousands of generations to artificially induce mutations. What were the results? When asked, he couldn't think of a single mutant that was more viable out in nature. He could only think of several which might be more viable at unusual conditions like very elevated temperatures.
Nils H. Nilsson [2], famous Swedish botanist and evolutionist, was active in plant breeding. He has said, “My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than 40 years have completely failed.”
How about the study of bacteria? Mutation has been studied most extensively in bacteriology because you can experiment with millions of bacteria and thousands of generations in a fairly short period of time. Alan H. Linton, British bacteriologist, wrote in 2001, "Throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another." [3]
We currently have millions of perfectly functioning species on earth all intricately woven together in phenomenal ecosystems connected to the earth. If there was a lot of mutating going on, then where are all the bad results from the mutations. The track record of mutations is mostly diseased and dysfunctional results. Where are they out in nature?
The fossil record does not show any "missing links". This is a well known fact. But, a missing link is an intermediary step along the "right" path to get to a certain developed species. But think about it. Missing links are a tiny, tiny fraction of what would have to be thousands of mutated beings that were the "wrong" path for every "missing link" along the "right" path. No mutants exist in the fossil record either.
All the species on the earth seem to exist in their "final" form, their "perfected" form, and fully functioning. How come scientists don't find any species in nature that are mutating toward something else? There are no records of ever having actually seen instances of evolution for as long as they have been looking. There have of course been changes within a species, but that’s not evolution.
Here is an even more fundamental problem for those who have faith in mutation. Mutation requires changes BUT ONLY after there is already a successfully functioning species. Where did that first species come from? You have to have a male and female correctly functioning respectively before they can have a mating relationship which could result in a mutation.
This picture from Wikipedia shows what types of mutations can occur. But note that it assumes the original DNA exists before mutation occurs. It cannot explain the original existence of the DNA.
In the old days people used to think that life could spontaneously "combust" out of nothing. No one believes that anymore. Life only comes from life.
Because there is life, the original source must have the attribute of life.
There must be God.
_____________
[1] Theodosius Dobzhansky, (January 24, 1900 - December 18, 1975) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodosius_Dobzhansky
was a prominent geneticist and evolutionary biologist, and a central figure in the field of evolutionary biology for his work in shaping the unifying modern evolutionary synthesis.
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nils_Heribert-Nilsson
[3] Alan H. Linton, emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol (U.K.), in The Times Higher Education Supplement (April 20, 2001), p. 29.
No comments:
Post a Comment