Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Most of us have been taught that mutations are 'the car of evolution'. That evolution took place through millions of these mutations.

As I began studying this subject, I discovered two very entertaining facts.

Darwins

First, no scientist has ever discovered a series of mutations that have caused a turn from one kind of creature to another. Unless this can be shown, no evolution has ever taken place.

Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Secondly, mutations are bad. They never have a distinct succeed (at least not permanently). Why are they so harmful? Because mutations are a succeed of information being subtracted from the genetic code of a creature or organism.

Down's syndrome is just one human example of a mutation. These mutations are all the time harmful, deadly or, at best, neutral (no known effect).

But, some would argue, what about mutations of bacteria that allows them to survive in an antibiotic substance? Isn't that proof that mutations can be good.

Not so fast.

These mutations are still bacteria that are lacking information that the normal bacteria have. The mutation (missing information) allows the bacteria to survive but they die off much faster once they are put back into normal population of that same type of bacteria. So instead of a permanent advantage, the mutation is still harmful in the long run.

Is there a human example of this type of thing? Could a harmful mutation literally be a good thing? Well, yes. But again it is temporary.

A good example might be blindness. Is blindness ever good? It could be in distinct situations. For instance, we know (through studies) that population that are relaxed have less of a tendency to be seriously or fatally injured in an automobile accident than those that are tense.

If a blind someone was relaxed before a serious auto accident (because he could not see the accident coming), it is possible that blindness could be the intuit that the person's life was saved. So it is feasible that a serious disability could save a person's life. But no one would desire to be blind in quarterly life experiences because it may save their life in an auto accident someday.

Once the blind someone is back into quarterly society, the disadvantage of blindness becomes apparent once again.

The process of evolution would need the exact opposite of mutations. It would call for the increasing of information (positive genetic information) not a subtraction of it. This has never been observed to occur.

The two serious problems with the law that mutations have lead to evolution is that there is no scientific evidence to show that they can succeed in good effects and there is no scientific proof whatsoever to show that mutations have caused a new and improved kind of creature (the previously mentioned bacteria are still the same kind of organism). Until it can be proven that mutations can be good (permanently) and that these mutations cause new kinds of improved creatures or organisms, evolution remains impossible.

Mutations, the 'vehicle for evolution' are heading in the opposite direction that it should be... If evolution were true. It takes great faith to believe that mutations could conceivably lead to new and improved creatures. To date, science literally does not give any evidence that evolution is possible through mutations.

Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Beltronics Rx65 Blue Adjustable Showerhead Shower Water

Charles Darwin's law

Charles Darwin is today known for his theory of evolution by natural selection. He industrialized this theory over a whole of years after returning on a 5 year (1831 to 1836) round the world travel on Hms Beagle. The frame of the theory was first presented in a paper read to the Linnean society by Charles Darwin's friends, Sir Charles Lyell and John Dalton Hooker (Darwin himself was unable to attend this presentation of his work because of the modern death of his child son from scarlet fever) on July 1st 1857. Darwin then presented his ideas to a wider public, and at considerably greater length, in his first-rate 1859 book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life", which today is regularly referred to plainly as "On the Origin of Species".

Many habitancy misunderstand what Darwin's theory is about. Perhaps the most base error is that it is a theory of the origin of life ("abiogenesis"), that is not the case - Darwin's theory does not deal with that matter, but rather is only about how successive generations of organisms turn over time ("evolution"). Other base point of blurring about Darwin's work is that he was the first person to suggest the idea of evolution - this is far from the case - evolutionary ideas date back to at least the 6th century Bce (e.g. The Greek philosopher Anaximander). Instead Darwin's great understanding was "natural selection", which is an explanation of how evolution works to yield new species and to generate organisms distinguished to their environments.

Darwins

Although of policy there are many details and fine points behind the idea of natural selection, the basic idea behind it is beautifully simple. It begins with the observation that children tend to be similar to their parents. From that observation one can state that anything heritable traits are good at helping organisms to survive and reproduce will tend to come to be more base in a population, whereas harmful heritable traits will gradually come to be less and less common. Of course, random changes to heritable traits ("mutations") may also occur, but these too will tend to come to be or less base depending on either they are helpful or harmful. Finally, when we think the heavy age of the Earth, this provides adequate time for the accumulation of tiny improvements in useful heritable traits to yield a great variety of separate organisms - in fact all life on Earth.

Charles Darwin's law

Charles Darwin's law

Garmin Forerunner 205 Gps Fitness Monitor can crusher wall mount automatic can crusher

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

A great boon for the system of evolution was an experiment named the Miller/Urey experiment. This experiment used a estimate of chemicals, together with ammonia and hydrogen. By putting electrical Charges into these chemicals it produced two of the very simplest of amino acids (these are needed to build a protein molecule).

This test gave promise to the hope that maybe this was how life was formed. This scientific experiment gained much public attention because it gave much validity to the idea that life came from non-living (inorganic) chemicals.

Darwins

That hope was dashed after awhile. Some huge problems arose:

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

One fact was that no oxygen was included in the experiment. Oxygen is needed for approximately all life forms. But this oxygen would thoroughly destroy this experiment (oxygen would cause an explosion). Oxygen, although needed for approximately all forms of life, will also eliminate the possibility of life while the 'formation of life'. I.e. The exact same ingredient that is required for life would eliminate all life in the preliminary stages.

Besides this problem, others arose as well:
1. There is no scientific evidence that the atmosphere was even close to the same type of atmosphere that was used in the experiment. It has never existed on the earth.
2. If it ever did exist, it would be deadly to virtually all forms of life on earth
3. The chemicals used in the experiment would eliminate the life forming possibilities.
This experiment has turned out to be a dead end for habitancy seeing for the evolutionary 'beginnings of life'.

It does get much worse.

Even evolutionists in general admit that the Miller/Urey experiment does nothing to bolster their theory. But many teachers, textbooks and even professors use this experiment to support the evolution theory.

So, although this experiment is not valid (to use in support for the system of evolution), the children in the Us are studying that it is a valid support for the theory. The textbooks used over our nation still use the experiment although it has been rejected by evolutionists decades ago as any support for the theory.

That would mean that our young adults and even our children are being taught 'facts' that thoroughly contradict science (Unfortunately, authentically scores of other examples like this are still in textbooks).

Yes, students are being taught Darwin's evolution system by dozens of 'facts' that have been proven wrong decades ago. Has the time come to replace this type of data in textbooks with the truth? Or should we allow these textbooks to continue together with outdated (and false) material?

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

heavy duty can crusher