ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.
ElShamah - Reason & Science: Defending ID and the Christian Worldview

Otangelo Grasso: This is my library, where I collect information and present arguments developed by myself that lead, in my view, to the Christian faith, creationism, and Intelligent Design as the best explanation for the origin of the physical world.

You are not connected. Please login or register

Review: The Rocks were there

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

1Review: The Rocks were there Empty Review: The Rocks were there Wed Jan 19, 2022 7:37 am



Review: The Rocks were there


pg 32:
Claim: Tiktaalik, transitional fossil
As vividly recounted in Shubin’s Your Inner Fish, Tiktaalik straddled that transition zone quite nicely, with weight-bearing fins that could flex (allowing it to hold to the bottom against fast currents), primitive lungs (attested 28 mins left in chapter 1% where tetrapods are a subset of lobe-finned fish, then they should expect to find a fish with tetrapod characteristics in Devonian strata. Not Cambrian (150 million years earlier), or Jurassic (200 million years later), but specifically Devonian, the window in time in which their evolution needed to have occurred. And not in deep marine or inland terrestrial deposits, either, but in shallow marine and coastal zones, the habitat in which this transition was taking place. This animal would necessarily have the gills, scales, and fins of a fish (they’d be aquatic animals, after all), but would also show features that would make sense in animals undergoing a change to a more terrestrial habitat (where the eventual forms have distinctive rib and limb bones, a mobile neck with separate pectoral girdle, the full lungs of a tetrapod, as well changes in the joints and ear regions). As vividly recounted in Shubin’s Your Inner Fish, Tiktaalik straddled that transition zone quite nicely, with weight-bearing fins that could flex (allowing it to hold to the bottom against fast currents), primitive lungs (attested 28 ruins left in chapter 1% to by the spiracle openings atop its head), and the pectoral girdle separate from the skull, the first fish with the makings of a flexible neck. Time and place, specified on evolutionary predictive lines, and a set of morphological features that ring true vertebrate in transition. Their very existence weighs on the scale of evidence as supporting the model that uniquely anticipated such a form of life would exist back then, so many millions of years ago.

" Tetrapods evolved " . Really ?  

Casey Luskin The Rise and Fall of Tiktaalik? Darwinists Admit “Quality” of Evolutionary Icon is “Poor” in Retroactive Confession of Ignorance (Updated)  September 26, 2008

Casey Luskin Tiktaalik Blown “Out of the Water” by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints January 7, 2010

Claim: Tiktaalik is not the only example of successful fossil prediction. The feathered dinosaurians Archaeopteryx and Microraptor, the mammal-like reptiles Diarthrognathus and Probainognathus, and the wasp-like ant Sphecomyrma all had characteristics anticipated by evolutionary biologists.

Response: There is no evidence, that feathers evolved from scales. Rather that God created feathered dinosaurs, and birds. Separately.

Can the origin of feathers be explained through evolution ?

The Dinosaur/Bird Connection: Dapper Dino & Otangelo Grasso

No evidence for the evolution of birds, feathers, and flight

Claim: Anti-evolutionists, on the other hand, have no examples of this. They have never successfully predicted any fossils with certain characteristics.
Response: Predicting things, and than having a confirmation of it, is not the measure of all things, and certainly not the measure of truth, when it comes to origins. But if seen from a more global viewpoint, predicting transitional fossils, as Darwin hoped, has actually been a huge failure.

Fossils - Evidence AGAINST evolution

Question to Sy Garte: If you know that evolution does not explain the major transistions, why do you still think that evolution tops special creation?

Do We have Reasons to Doubt the Evolutionary Paradigm?

His response after 1h12m50s: Science has no explanation in regards of the Cambrian explosion, and the transition from unicellular, to multicellular life.

Claim:  Indeed, creationists have never successfully predicted any phenomena that should exist if the Earth were only around 6,000 years old and if a global Flood had occurred. In science, this is not to say some antievolutionists don’t try to contribute to the scientific technical literature. Intelligent Design advocate Jonathan Wells authored a 1985 paper proposing “Inertial force as a possible factor in mitosis” and coauthored with Brian 27 mins left in chapter 1% found and interpreted as transitional Anti-evolutionists, on the other hand, have no examples of this. They have never successfully predicted any fossils with certain characteristics. Part of this is due to how few of them do paleontology, and still fewer lay out the characteristics that would need to be changing or not, then seek out the evidence in the way the regular science does so successfully. Indeed, creationists have never succes

Response:  The relevant question is not, if the earth is 6000 years old ( i believe actually, 7500 years ), but if intelligence was involved to create the world, which entails a creator, or not. If someone after believing in God, in particular, the Christian God, holds to the view that the earth is young, or old, is a secondary question.

Comparing worldviews - there are basically just two

The model of intelligent design makes predictions, and is testable

Design can be tested using scientific logic.  How? Upon the logic of mutual exclusion, design and non-design are mutually exclusive (it was one or the other) so we can use eliminative logic: if non-design is highly improbable, then design is highly probable.  Thus, the evidence against non-design (against production of a feature by  undirected natural process) is evidence for design.  And vice versa. The evaluative status of non-design (and thus design) can be decreased or increased by observable empirical evidence, so a theory of design is empirically responsive and is testable.

Observation: Intelligent agents act frequently with an end goal in mind, constructing functional irreducibly complex multipart-machines, and make exquisitely integrated circuits that require a blueprint to build the object. Furthermore, Computers integrate software/hardware and store high levels of instructional complex coded information. In our experience, systems that either a)require or b)store large amounts of specified instructional complex information through codes and languages, and which are constructed in interdependence of hard and software invariably originate from an intelligent source. No exception.

Hypothesis (Prediction): Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns, metabolic pathways similar to electronic circuits, and irreducible structures that perform specific functions -- indicating high levels of  Information, irreducible complexity, and interdependence, like hard/software.

Experiment: Experimental investigations of DNA, epigenetic codes, and metabolic circuits indicate that biological molecular machines and factories ( Cells ) are full of information-rich, language-based codes and code/blueprint-based structures. Biologists have performed mutational sensitivity tests in proteins and determined that their amino acid sequences, in order to provide function, require highly instructional complex coded information stored in the Genome.   Additionally, it has been found, that cells require and use various epigenetic codes, namely  Splicing Codes,  Metabolic Codes,  Signal Transduction Codes,  Signal Integration Codes Histone Codes, Tubulin Codes, Sugar Codes, and The Glycomic Code. Furthermore, all kinds of irreducibly complex molecular machines and biosynthesis performing and metabolic pathways have been found, which could not keep their basic functions without a minimum number of parts and complex inter-wined and interdependent structures. That indicates these biological machines and pathways had to emerge fully operational, all at once. A stepwise evolutionary manner is not possible. Furthermore, knockout experiments of all components of the flagellum have shown that the flagellum is irreducibly complex.

Conclusion: Unless someone can falsify the prediction, and point out a non-intelligent source of  Information as found in the cell, the high levels of instructional complex coded information, irreducible complex and interdependent molecular systems and complex metabolic circuits and biosynthesis pathways, their origin is best explained by the action of an intelligent agent. We do not need direct observed empirical evidence to infer design. Origins of reality cannot be explained through testing experiments of operational science, but one can extrapolate what we see today back to times that we cannot see today, and therefore these extrapolations cannot be confirmed via the empirical method. As anyone who has watched TV's Crime Scene Investigation knows, scientific investigation of a set of data (the data at the scene of a man's death) may lead to the conclusion that the event that produced the data (the death) was not the product of natural causes, not an accident, in other words, but was the product of an intelligence a perpetrator. But of course, the data at the crime scene usually can't tell us very much about that intelligence. If the data includes fingerprints or DNA that produces a match when cross-checked against other data fingerprints or DNA banks it might lead to the identification of an individual. But even so, the tools of natural science are useless to determine the I.Q. of the intelligence, the efficiency vs. the emotionalism of the intelligence, or the motive of the intelligence. That data, analyzed by only the tools of natural science, often cannot permit the investigator to construct a theory of why the perpetrator acted.  Sherlock Holmes can use chemistry to figure out that an intelligence a person did the act that killed the victim, even if he can't use chemistry to figure out that the person who did it was Professor Moriarty, or to figure out why Moriarty did the crime. Same when we observe the natural world. It gives us hints about how it could have been created. We do not need to present the act of creation to infer creationism / Intelligent design.

Claim: But it’s worse than that. Strictly anti-evolutionist articles have yet to survive the peer-review process in standard journals, and since so many of their articles published in their own journals (such as the Answers Research Journal for Young Earth creationism, or BIO-Complexity for Intelligent Design) ignore so much of the technical data, neither of the authors of this book. are holding our breath for a successful anti-evolutionist piece to ever come down the slide.
Response: If intelligent design theorists do manage to publish in a peer-reviewed science journal, Darwinists will make sure the editor suffers grievously for it.

"The scientific establishment bears a grisly resemblance to the Spanish Inquisition. Either you accept the rules and attitudes and beliefs promulgated by the 'papacy' (for which read, perhaps, the Royal Society or the Royal College of Physicians), or face a dreadful retribution. We will not actually burn you at the stake, because that sanction, unhappily, is now no longer available under our milksop laws. But we will make damned sure that you are a dead duck in our trade."
(Gould, Donald [former editor of New Scientist], "Letting poetry loose in the laboratory," New Scientist, 29 August 1992, p.51)

Why isn't intelligent design found published in mainstream [b]peer-reviewed science journals? Darwinists use a similar rule—I call it “Catch-23”—to exclude intelligent design from science: [/b]intelligent design is not scientific, so it can’t be published in [b]peer-reviewed scientific journals. How [/b]do we know it’s not scientific? Because it isn’t published in [b]peer[/b]-reviewed scientific journals. Catch-23! 4

From Jonathan Wells Phd., A politically incorrect guide to Darwinism and intelligent design, page 111

Why isn't intelligent design found published in peer-reviewed science journals?

Claim: Finally, on this quote, we can agree with the author on one thing: what is causing the anti-evolutionist to stall up is not a matter of evidence. Theirs is a theological imperative, but it is a branch of evangelical apologetics, not science.
Response: Theism versus atheism: What is it really about?

The theism versus atheism debate is not about anyone providing empirical proofs or demonstrations in regards to ultimate reality. Theists do not need to provide empirical proof of God's existence. Our senses are limited and can observe only a small fraction of reality.  One needs to use the best epistemological framework, and intellectual tools, that is science, philosophy, and theology, to conclude the most case-adequate explanation of origins.
The investigator has to be honest, rigorous, and permit the evidence to lead wherever it is. The quest is not about  

- Faith and religion versus Science and reason
- Theological dogma versus scientific investigation
- Religion versus science
- Bronze age books versus peer-reviewed papers
- Preaching of supernatural mythology versus the natural
- Facts versus faith
- Magical thinking versus reality
- Magic versus a scientific theory
- Holy Bible versus peer review

It's about

- Good inferences versus bad inferences.
- Good reasons versus bad reasons.
- Reasonable faith versus irrational or blind faith

Either all physical existence, all being, the universe, was caused, created, and fine-tuned, the laws of physics and constants, life, consciousness, and objective moral values were instantiated


events by no mechanism by luck and chance



by an intelligent mind, a powerful eternal conscious creator

Either biological systems, ecosystems, and biodiversity originated by unguided evolutionary pressures, and long periods of time, or an acting intelligent agency, either using creation or evolutionary mechanisms.  

It is commonly claimed that the alternative to intelligent design is chance. But the chance is not a mechanism. Chance is an occasion that allows something to be done. It is the statistical probability that a random, unguided event occurred naturally. Something that happens unpredictably without discernible intelligent intention or causal agency. Either all-natural, physical things, the universe, stars, galaxies, the earth, life, and biodiversity emerged by a lucky accident, spontaneously through self-organization by unguided natural events in an orderly manner without external direction,  purely physico-dynamic processes, and reactions, or through the direct intervention and creative force of an intelligent agency, a powerful creator.

Claim: Well, by that definition, evolution qualifies as an operational science. Evolution is definitely observable and (as we showed) testable. All of its mechanisms—whether natural selection (differential reproductive success) or sexual selection (mate preferences affecting the allele mix), genetic drift (genes mutating in ways that don’t immediately show up as good or bad), gene flow (how specific alleles move though population segments), or the founder effect (small populations establishing a base from which all de— scendants build on)—are observable and testable. In fact, these mechanisms are completely accepted even by many 24 mins left in chapter 1% have been used to solve cases that are years and even decades old. Is that not historical science? And doesn’t it still work? So, what then is this strictly operational/observational science the creationists want as the only permissible one? Patterson defines it as “a systematic approach to understanding that uses observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation to understand how nature commonly behaves.” Well, by that definition, evolution qualifies as an operational science. Evolution is definitely observable and (as we showed) testable. All of its mechanisms—whether natural selection (differential reproductive success) or sexual selection (mate preferences affecting the allele mix), genetic drift (genes mutating in ways that don’t immediately show up as good or bad), gene flow (how specific alleles move though population segments), or the founder effect (small populations establishing a base from which all descendants build on)—are observable and testable. In fact, these mechanisms are completely accepted even by many 24 mins left in chapter 1% anti-evolutionists, if you look carefully at their own literature for the fine print; they just avoid drawing the bigger implications of them.

Reply: Historical sciences, and methodological naturalism

Operational science asks a fundamentally different question: How do things work/operate in the natural world. Historical science asks: How did things come to be/emerge/develop in the past? These are distinct and different questions.
Evolution science belongs to BOTH faculties. 

Claim: Evolution is most certainly falsifiable. Never mind the paleontological cliché of finding a rabbit in the Precambrian (there simply should be no highly derived terrestrial vertebrates back then). If allele frequency did not change from generation to generation, then the underlying mutation stockpile for the process would be missing, and evolution would be falsified. That hasn’t happened, and we can’t pretend that it has just to please the dogmatic needs of creationists who take Roger Patterson’s stunted definition of “science” as gospel. Lastly, evolution is repeatable, but we have to understand what this means. Let’s return to our forensic science example. Can a single murder be repeated? No, once the person is dead, then (tautologically) they’re dead. Forensic scientists do not have to completely redo the murder to figure 23 mins left in chapter 1% anti-evolutionists, if you look carefully at their own literature for the fine print; they just avoid drawing the bigger implications of them. But that doesn’t mean we’re not going to notice. Evolution is most certainly falsifiable. Never mind the paleontological cliché of finding a rabbit in the Precambrian (there simply should be no highly derived terrestrial vertebrates back then). If allele frequency did not change from generation to generation, then the underlying mutation stock— pile for the process would be missing, and evolution would be falsified. That hasn’t happened, and we can’t pretend that it has just to please the dogmatic needs of creationists who take Roger Patterson’s stunted definition of “science" as gospel.

Reply: Failed and falsified evolutionary predictions

Falsification of evolution is impossible


The great problem with evolution theory, as many writers have pointed out, is that it cannot be falsified. Nothing can falsify it, and that makes it an article of faith. It also puts it on a par with faith in God. Now that I regard as serious.

I say that it cannot be falsified for the following reasons:

1 If it has been seen to occur (it never has, as far as I know) that's proof of evolution(see, it happened!)
2 If it has not been seen to occur, that's proof too. (Never mind, we know it did, pat pat).
3 If it can account for the origin of anything, that's proof. (see, that's proof!)
4 If it can't, then that's proof too. (Ah the evidence hasn't emerged as yet).

It simply cannot be falsified and therefore it is not a scientific theory. Popper says so.

One patronising criticism one hears is 'that's found on a creationist site' as if that invalidates a fact! If one were to say, it's found on talkorigins, and is therefore invalidated, then who knows what wrath will descend? There's a double standard here.

Claim: In a very real sense, no amount of evidence can persuade them. The same cannot be said of any scientific proposition, whether evolution, the Big Bang, or abiogenesis (not strictly a concern of natural evolution anyway, however insistently anti-evolutionists play the Origins or Bust card in their apologetic game, which we’ll have more to say on in Chapter 3).

Reply: As stated previously, what is on stake here, is not, if evolution is true or not, but if God exists, and if he was involved to create the world, or not. Answering that question, has real implications in the life of anyone of us.


2Review: The Rocks were there Empty Re: Review: The Rocks were there Sat Jan 29, 2022 3:39 pm



Claim: Most interestingly, it turned out that those lambda bacteriophages were doing exactly what Michael Behe and company were insisting was impossible: multiple mutations (four in this case) cropping up repeatedly in them— mutations which individually had selective value in dealing with one thing (binding to the LamB receptor), but which together enabled an entirely new capacity in the phage, the ability to bind to a completely different molecule, OmpF.

Response: Non random mutations : How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome 2 3


Simon Conway Morris: Evolutionary Paleobiology at Cambridge, (Runes of Evolution, 38)
argues that adaptation is not an undirected, random walk through all possibilities. For example, when muscle tissue develops into organs that produce electricity, the process requires very precise amino acid replacements at specific sites, together with accelerated evolution of the new function, and Conway Morris concludes that:
“there is little doubt that these changes are very far from random”
He therefore argues that while the underlying principles of Darwinian evolution are correct, they do not provide a complete explanation of development, and a more comprehensive theory of evolution is required.

Paul Davies: the demon in the machine, page 78
A lot of E. coli suffered glucose deprivation. When the dust settled, this is what emerged. Mutations are not random: that part is correct. Bacteria have mutational hotspots – specific genes that mutate up to hundreds of thousands of times faster than average.

Starving bacteria, Rosenberg discovered, can switch from a high-fidelity repair process to a sloppy one. Doing so creates a trail of damage either side of the break, out as far as 60,000 bases or more: an island of selfinflicted
vandalism. Rosenberg then identified the genes for organizing and controlling this process. It turns out they are very ancient; evidently, deliberately botching DNA repair is a basic survival mechanism stretching back into the mists of biological history. By generating cohorts of mutants in this manner, the colony of bacteria improves its chances that at least one daughter cell will accidentally hit on the right solution. Natural selection does the rest. In effect, the stressed bacteria engineer their own high-speed evolution by generating genomic diversity on the fly.

And all available scientific evidence also indicates that evolution is an engineered process. In engineering and computer science, evolution never happens by accident. It’s always the result of a deliberate act. A program that can self-evolve is always considered an engineering marvel. 6

The macroscopic signals that a cell receives from its environment can influence which genes it expresses — and thus which proteins it contains at any given time — or even the rate of mutation of its DNA, which could lead to changes in the molecular structures of the proteins. 8

The genome has traditionally been treated as a Read-Only Memory (ROM) subject to change by copying errors and accidents. 7  I propose that we need to change that perspective and understand the genome as an intricately formatted Read-Write (RW) data storage system constantly subject to cellular modifications and inscriptions. Cells operate under changing conditions and are continually modifying themselves by genome inscriptions. These inscriptions occur over three distinct time-scales (cell reproduction, multicellular development and evolutionary change) and involve a variety of different processes at each time scale (forming nucleoprotein complexes, epigenetic formatting and changes in DNA sequence structure). Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.

Ever since the formulation of the neo-Darwinist Modern Synthesis evolutionary theoryin the 1930s and 1940s, it has been an article of faith that hereditary variation results from stochastic copying errors and unavoidable damage to the genome

In the past 60 years, since the structure of DNA was elucidated, molecular biologists have studied the basic mechanisms of long-term genome change. They have discovered a wide array of proofreading and damage repair biochemical systems that remove copying errors and correct DNA damage. At the same time, they have revealed an amazing and wholly unanticipated array of cellular and molecular systems that operate to generate genome variability, both temporary and structural. As we begin the second decade of the 21st century, accumulating empirical evidence has thus shifted the perspective on genome variation to that of an active inscription process changing the information passed on to future generations.

Mutation 1

It is clear that new gene alleles are accumulating in populations today, but there are two possible sources for these changes; mutations, and intentional changes introduced by genetic recombination. The theory of evolution attributes the continued production of genetic diversity to mutations, but evolutionists overlook the fact that the cell was intelligently designed. The cellular machinery was programmed to perform a level of self genetic engineering, and is editing genes systematically so that organisms can adapt to a wide variety of environmental conditions.

Evolutionists contend that mutation, acted upon by natural selection is the mechanism for evolutionary advancement. While this mechanism has the power to change the genome over time, most biological evolution is actually due to genetic recombination followed by natural selection. There are many examples put forward by evolutionary biologists that attempt to show how new genes have been introduced into the genome of an organism. However, in most documented cases it merely illustrates the built-in plasticity or variation within the original created kind. Merely shuffling of already existing genes becomes woefully inadequate if the observational science is followed.
Despite the few examples of beneficial genetic mutations it is unrealistic to assume that this information produced through changing already existing DNA would then be acted on again many more times by other related mutations to build radically different and complex structures than what was there previously. This is to say that mutations are not a reasonable means of producing cascading morphological change from one kind of animal to another but merely speciation.

Biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner in his book, Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, analyzed examples of mutational changes that evolutionists claimed were increases in information, and demonstrated that they were actually examples of loss of specificity, meaning loss of information.
“ In all the reading I've done in the life-sciences literature, I've never found a mutation that added information. … All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it." - Spetner ”
“ We see then that the mutation reduces the specificity of the ribosome protein and that means a loss of genetic information. ... Rather than saying the bacterium gained resistance to the antibiotic, it is more correct to say that is lost sensitivity to it. ... All point mutations that have been studied on the molecular level turn out to reduce the genetic information and not increase it.

Georgia Purdom, Ph.D. of molecular genetics, has stated,

“ Mutations only alter current genetic information; they have never, ever been observed to add genetic information; they can only change what is there. I have a lot of papers come across my desk of supposedly mutations that have added genetic information, and I've read them all, and I've looked at them all, and never, once have I seen one that has added genetic information; they just don't do that.

Nonrandom mutations 4

Mutations are supposed to be accidental, undirected events that are in no way adaptive. For example, if an animal species needs thick fur to survive in a cold climate, it will not respond by growing fur; rather, any animals who undergo random genetic changes that happen to result in thick fur will survive to produce more offspring. As Robert Gilson says, ‘The doctrine of random variation is just as unprovable as is the doctrine of the Virgin Birth, and just as sacrosanct to its adherents.’1

Attempts to justify the doctrine of random mutations usually refer to a series of experiments on the bacterium E. coli in the late 1940s and early 50s. These experiments found that when bacterial cells are suddenly subjected to a particular selection pressure (e.g. the addition of a lethal antibiotic), a small proportion of cells invariably survive because they contain a mutation that confers resistance to the antibiotic. Tests were then carried out which proved that the mutations were present in the surviving cells before the antibiotic was added to the culture, and that they were therefore truly spontaneous and nonadaptive. However, the original researchers recognized that this did not rule out the possibility of adaptive, nonrandom mutations.2

More recent experiments have shown that mutations can indeed occur in direct response to an environmental challenge – and have aroused great controversy.3 It has been found that bacteria which are unable to digest lactose, if given no other food, will after a few days develop new mutants that are able to handle it, the mutation rate being many orders of magnitude faster than the ‘spontaneous’, ‘random’ rate. Two independent mutations were needed, giving an ‘accidental’ explanation a probability of less than 1 in 10^18. Adaptive mutations also appear to occur in yeast cells and possibly fruit flies.4 The existence of adaptive mutations is now widely accepted, though the term ‘directed mutations’ is sometimes shunned. Although some of the biochemical mechanisms involved have been identified, there is no real understanding of what lies behind the phenomenon.

According to Eshel Ben-Jacob and his colleagues, ‘a picture of problem-solving bacteria capable of adapting their genome to problems posed by the environment is emerging’; ‘It seems as if the bacterial colony can not only compute better than the best parallel computers we have, but can also think and even be creative.’5 As James Shapiro has said, even the ‘simplest’ form of life – tiny, ‘brainless’ bacteria – ‘display biochemical, structural and behavioral complexities that outstrip scientific description’.6

The rapidity with which pests, from rats to insects, acquire resistance to poisons is also hard to account for on the basis of conventional evolutionary theory. Some 500 species of insects and mites have been able to defeat at least one pesticide by genetic changes that either defensively alter the insect’s physiology or produce special enzymes to attack and destroy the poison. 17 have shown themselves capable of resisting all chemicals deployed against them. As Robert Wesson says, ‘If it is true that mutations are much more frequent where they are needed than when they are virtually certain to be harmful, they cannot be held to be random.’7 Shapiro states that ‘All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant nonrandom patterns of change ...’8

Molecular biologist Lynn Caporale points out that mutations seem to occur preferentially in certain parts of the genome while other DNA sequences tend to be conserved – which shows, she says, that evolution is not purely a game of chance. Although she believes that genomes can ‘steer’ mutations to ‘hot spots’ where they are more likely to increase fitness, and that the genome may be ‘in some way intelligent’, she does not believe that the actual mutations themselves are nonrandom in the sense of being somehow engineered by the organism in question to bring about the changes it needs.9 This is a good example of how Darwinists sometimes dress up their dogmas in ‘sexy’ and even mystical-sounding language.

The randomness of mutations has been called into question since the 1970s in experiments demonstrating that cells subject to non-lethal selection come up repeatedly with just the  right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply 5

1) http://creationwiki.org/Mutation
2) http://vcp.med.harvard.edu/papers/shapiro-read-write-genome.pdf
3) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611
4) http://davidpratt.info/evod1.htm
5) http://www.i-sis.org.uk/Nonrandom_directed_mutations_confirmed.php
6) http://cosmicfingerprints.com/romans1/
7) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23876611
8 ) http://www.nature.com.https.sci-hub.hk/articles/35011540


Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum