|
|
|
|
|
|
Argument #2 Against EvolutionNatural Selection and Mutationsby Jeff Estep
***DISCLAIMER- PLEASE READ*** THE AUTHOR OF THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT HAVE A PH.D., NOR DOES HE OR SHE CLAIM OR PRETEND TO BE A PROFESSIONAL SCIENTIST WITH CREDENTIALS THAT WOULD MAKE HIM AN "EXPERT" IN THE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. ALTHOUGH THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED IN THIS ARTICLE ARE ACCURATE TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, "REASONS FOR CHRIST" ASKS THAT YOU WOULD PLEASE NOT USE THIS ARTICLE AS A SOURCE IN ACADEMIC PAPERS. THIS IS FOR YOUR PROTECTION. ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE OUR ARTICLES ARE CREDIBLE, ANY ARGUMENTS YOU MAKE IN AN ACADEMIC PAPER WOULD BE MUCH MORE POWERFUL IF YOU USED ARTICLES WRITTEN BY AUTHORS WITH PH.D.'S AS YOUR SOURCES . THE BIBLIOGRAPHY AT THE END OF THE ARTICLE SHOULD HELP YOU FIND SOME GOOD SOURCES. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OUR SOURCES AND WHERE WE FOUND THEM, PLEASE E-MAIL US AND WE WILL RESPOND. We've all heard the fairy tale about the princess that kisses a frog, which magically turns into a prince. While it would be grossly unscientific to believe that humans "magically" formed from monkeys, mammals from amphibians, etc., that is in a sense how evolution would work, only instead of "magic" the potion used to further the process is called "time", or "chance". Two theories have been set forth by evolutionists to explain the change from single-celled organisms to birds and reptiles and people and the like. One theory says that "Natural Selection" chose more adaptive species over unadapted species, and that the adapted species passed on their genes, causing a slow evolution. The other theory says that chance mutation is the reason for the incredible variety of life observed on this planet. However, both theories are flawed and impractical. Natural SelectionWhen Darwin and others first proposed evolution, natural selection was seen as the driving force behind evolutionary change. The concept of natural selection states that if an organism can adapt to its environment, it will survive, produce offspring, and pass on its genes. If an organism cannot adapt to environmental change, the organism will die, and not pass on its genes. Both sides of the creation/evolution issue will respond to these statements with a collective "Duh!". Obviously, if an organism can survive, it will, and if it can't, it can't. But that doesn't prove evolution. Let's say we take two cats; we shave one of them, and throw them both into a forest in Siberia. The person accepting natural selection would say that the cat that has fur will be more adapted to the cold and will be more able (if the cat can find a mate) to pass on its genes to its offspring, while the bald cat will probably die within minutes. Again, Duh! But that doesn't prove evolution. Nothing is changing here, except that the shaven cat is now dead. The genetic code of the living cat has not changed a bit. He has not evolved into a more well adapted kind of cat. He was simply more able to survive in a harsh climate. This brings us to our main point: Natural Selection does not produce any new genetic material. It only destroys existing genetic material. (1) The cat in our example did not produce in itself any new genes that would make it impervious to cold. No new genetic material was added to the gene pool. However, the genes of the shaved cat were removed from the gene pool. So there is now less variation in the cat family than there was before our little experiment. How can evolution, which stresses gradual change and increasing variation among species, be driven by a process that eliminates genetic material but doesn't allow for the formation of any new genes? MutationTo compensate for this obvious flaw in evolutionary thinking, most evolutionists now teach that random mutations are the building blocks of genetic change. Mutations occur when cells don't replicate their DNA properly during mitosis. Organisms with mutations often cannot survive for very long. Mutations are usually deadly, harmful, or at best neutral, but almost never "good". In fact, Nobel Prize Winner H.J. Mueller says of mutations, "good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad." (3) If all mutations are bad, how can organisms get better through mutation? It simply isn't possible. Furthermore, even if good mutations did occur, it would take several beneficial mutations in a row to produce an entirely new type of organism. When defending their claim that humans evolved from monkeys, evolutionists point out that human DNA is about 98% similar to ape DNA. Does that prove evolution? No! There are about 100,000 genes in the human genetic code. (2) A 2% difference would mean that there are about 2,000 differing genes. This would mean that if humans evolved from apes, there would have to be at least 2,000 major, beneficial mutations that would have to occur. That's a lot of "good" mutations. And based on what we know about mutations, good ones don't come along all that often. Some evolutionists claim that good mutations do exist. The genetic defect that causes sickle cell anemia is seen by some to be a good mutation, because people with the defect are less likely to catch malaria. They claim that this is evolution at work. Of course, people often die of sickle cell anemia, so it doesn't matter that they won't catch malaria. This genetic mutation is clearly not beneficial; it is harmful, if not deadly. Therefore, we can conclude that mutation is not a likely driving force behind evolutionary change, and the theory of natural selection is equally flawed. Since these theories are the only possible explanations for evolutionary change, and these theories are wrong, it is not safe to believe in evolution.
Sources:
|
