Mutations cannot be the mechanism of Evolution., page 2

Thank you for your pactience!

Let me start by saying I recognizes that mutations do exist, and that certain bacteria and viruses become resistant to treatments. However, no scientist in the listings you provide can give examples of any mutation that produces a net increase in genetic information, leading to a higher level of transitional development towards macroevolution (one kind of animal developing into another kind. I do not need to know how many scientists believe in evolution; I would like documentation of transitional developing life forms due to additional information in the genetic code.

Byrd this is for you, Incidentally, the ICR biologists received their degrees from reputable universities, such as Harvard (Dr. Cumming), University of California, Berkeley (Gish and Scripture), UCLA (Franks), Ball State University (Parker), Texas A & M. (Thompson), Brown University (Mastropaolo), and others. You may find this information on there webpage at
www.icr.org...

All research scientists use good scientific techniques in the lab, not evolution or supernatural creation. I make my case on the basis of good scientific evidence, not on religion or philosophy. It is how one interprets the evidence, and not what the evidence is. Both evolutionists and creationists look at the same evidences.

Often the claim is made in biology classes that evolution has been observed in certain microbes-germs that over time have developed a resistance to antibiotics. For instance, penicillin is generally now less effective than before. Stronger and more focused drugs have been developed, each with initial benefits, but which must continue to be replaced with something stronger. Now, "super germs" defy treatment.

One might ask, have these single-celled germs "evolved"? And does this prove that single-celled organisms evolved into plants and people?

As is frequently the case, we must first distinguish between variation, adaptation, and recombination of existing traits (i.e., microevolution) and the appearance of new and different genes, body parts, and traits (i.e., macroevolution). Does this acquired resistance to antibiotics, this population shift, this dominant exhibition of a previously minority trait point to macroevolution? Since each species of germ remained that same species and nothing new was produced, the answer is no!

For More Information Click Here!

As for this link:
www.gate.net...:

Six examples were given as follows:

1. Gene variants of PAI-1 and ACE account for a significant portion of the between-individual variability of circulating PAI-1 antigen concentrations in a general population without clinical evidence of atherosclerosis.

2. A third frequent mutation in this gene, the Ser447-Stop, is reported by some investigators to underlie higher HDL cholesterol levels and would represent a beneficial genetic variant in lipoprotein metabolism.

3. The LPL Ser447-Stop mutation therefore should have a protective effect against the development of atherosclerosis and subsequent CAD.

4. These associations provide evidence for a common mutation that appears to confer beneficial lipid and lipoprotein profiles amongst an adult male population with regard to risk of CAD.

5. This is a rare example of an inherited functional human disorder in which a mutation affecting splicing still permits some correct splicing to occur and this has a beneficial effect to the phenotype of the patients.

6. Gbeta3-s appears to be associated with enhanced immune cell function in humans.

Rebuttal:

Let us define our terms. We are not talking about built in variations in the genome but mistakes that are made when one or a few nucleotides within the DNA molecule are incorrectly copied which causes a single amino acid substitution in a protein. This can be benign at the least and at the most, lethal. Mutations are ultimately harmful to the normal life cycle of any living organism beyond the bacteria stage. Another possible definition for mutation is a deficiency in DNA repair (cf. Genomes 2nd Edition by T.A. Brown. p.418). We have yet to find a mutation that increases genetic information, even in those rare instances where the mutation confers an advantage.

However, a general rule to consider in evaluating such statements is that mutations do produce novel genetic changes, but never has a mutation seen known to add coded information to an already complex DNA system. on the contrary, it usually and easily causes a deterioration of the information present in the DNA. Never has a helpful mutation been observed, yet trillions are needed. Therefore, the small changes that we see do not add up to the big changes evolution needs.

Did a single-celled organism become a marine invertebrate, then a fish, then an amphibian, then a reptile, then a mammal, then an ape-like ancestor then a person? The ratio of good to bad mutations is not the point. A cell doesn't have the genes needed to produce even a nodal chord, nor does a fish have the genes to produce legs. This extra genetic information must be added from some external source, but science knows of no such source (cf. BTG # 161 at the ICR web site, www.icr.org). Other helpful articles are asfollows:

1. "Words: Genetic and Linguistic Problems for Evolution"
www.icr.org...; URL:
www.icr.org...

2. "Production of Therapeutic Proteins by Genetic Engineering,"
www.icr.org...; URL:
www.icr.org...

3. "Why Can't Geneticists See the Obvious Evidence for Creation in the
Genetic Code?" www.icr.org...; URL:
www.icr.org...

4. Refuting Evolution (Series 2) - Lesson 2: Chapter 2 - "Variation and
Natural Selection Versus Evolution"

"Refuting Evolution (Series 2) Q&A: Mutations. Q&A: Speciation. Discussion questions: 1. Briefly outline and critique the 'general theory of evolution' (in the molecules-to-man sense) Discuss the role of 'natural selection' and 'mutations'...." found at www.answersingenesis.org...

5. "Hox Hype - Has Macro-evolution Been Proven?" found at
www.answersingenesis.org...

[Edited on 29-5-2004 by BlackJackal]

[Edited on 30-5-2004 by BlackJackal]