The contradictory claim :
It is claimed by the evolutionary paradigm ( worldview) that biological evolution can get and did get a simpler cell to a more complex cell ie Jellyfish to Professor of oceanography .
The process ( primary axiom of biological evolution ) , according to
evolutionists , which introduces new information ie wings , legs , brain
, eyes , arms etc ....to the genome and biosphere which turns a jellyfish into a professor of Oceanography , is
produced through mutations that happen within the genome . In order to
get all the complex living organisms past and present , that have
inhabited this planet , from simpler cells to more complex cells there
would have to be billions and billions of these hypothetical information
adding mutations . But there is a huge problem with this claim because
mutations within the genome are in the main harmful or neutral and no
mutations has ever been observed which add information to the genome
and the biosphere simultaneously. Therefore , mutations do not produce the effect which biological evolutionary proponents claim and their theory requires . What we observe is corruption of information and not introduction of new information .
Beneficial mutations do not add any new information to the biosphere/genome , they produce information loss ie beetles losing ( information for wings at the genetic level not being passed on to new offspring due to mutation , which are then passed on to the offspring of the beetles with that genetic mutation and the cycle produces generation after generation of wingless beetles ) their wings on a windy island would be beneficial to the wingless beetles as they would not be blown into the sea . But , they have lost information for wings and that island would eventually be populated with wingless beetles , which is clearly a demonstration of degeneration and not generation as biological evolution requires .
-------------
Mutations are disadvantageous :
" These genes that control early developemental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan . Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous , and it is conceivable that they are always so ."
Wallace Arthur , the origins of amimal body plans , 1994 p14 .
Biologist B. G. Ranganathan
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.
B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988.
Beneficial mutations do not add any new information to the biosphere/genome , they produce information loss ie beetles losing ( information for wings at the genetic level not being passed on to new offspring due to mutation , which are then passed on to the offspring of the beetles with that genetic mutation and the cycle produces generation after generation of wingless beetles ) their wings on a windy island would be beneficial to the wingless beetles as they would not be blown into the sea . But , they have lost information for wings and that island would eventually be populated with wingless beetles , which is clearly a demonstration of degeneration and not generation as biological evolution requires .
-------------
Mutations are disadvantageous :
" These genes that control early developemental processes are involved in the establishment of the basic body plan . Mutations in these genes will usually be extremely disadvantageous , and it is conceivable that they are always so ."
Wallace Arthur , the origins of amimal body plans , 1994 p14 .
Biologist B. G. Ranganathan
First, genuine mutations are very rare in nature. Secondly, most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes;any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.
B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988.
No comments:
Post a Comment