There is another difficulties that the theory of evolution has to overcome. How the evolution took place? What is a fundamental mechanism that is believed to have allowed a life form to evolve into another? Evolutionists call into question a number of changes within the cell nucleus. Among these are the most important changes "accidental" these mutations. It is thought to be responsible for these mutations in particular genes and chromosomes of the sex cells, since their changes may be transmitted to offspring.
2 "mutations. . . are the basis of evolution, "says World Book Encyclopedia.1 The paleontologist Steven Stanley called the changes "raw material" of evolution and the geneticist .2 Peo Koller said that mutations are necessary for the evolutionary process ".3 3
But evolution is not good for any mutation. Robert Jastrow points out the need for "a slow accumulation of mutations beneficial" .4 And Carl Sagan adds: "The changes - sudden changes in heredity - are reproduced faithfully. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that promote the survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of life form in the other, The origin of new species ".5
4 There is also those who argue that the mutations may help to explain the rapid changes postulated by the theory of 'punctuated equilibrium." Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman said: "The revisionists believe that the evolution of mutations in important regulatory genes may be just the hammer drills are necessary for their genetic theory of 'quantum' evolution by jumps." But the British zoologist Colin Patterson said: "Speculation has free rein. We know nothing of these key regulatory genes ".6 But apart from these speculations, it is generally believed that the mutations responsible for the alleged evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.
5 What causes mutations? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they can also be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. How often do they occur? The cell's genetic material is reproduced with remarkable fidelity. Relatively speaking, in proportion to the number of dividing cells in a living, mutations are not very frequent. As noted by the Encyclopedia Americana, reproduction "of DNA strands that form a gene is remarkably accurate. Copying or transcription errors are rare incidents ".7
helpful or harmful?
6 If one of the mechanisms of evolution is represented by beneficial mutations, what percentage of them are these? On this point there is complete agreement among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan said: "Most of them is harmful or lethal" .8 Peo Koller said: "The majority of mutations are deleterious to the individual carrying the mutant gene. The experiments revealed that, for any useful or beneficial mutation, there are many thousands harmful ".9
7 Therefore, excluding the mutations" neutral ", the number of those harmful than a thousand times that of the presumably beneficial mutations. "It's normal to be so when in any highly organized structure changes occur accidentally," says the Encyclopædia Britannica.10 for this are attributed to mutations in hundreds of related illness in genetica.11
8 Given the nature of harmful mutations, recognizes the Encyclopedia Americana: "The fact that the majority of mutations is harmful to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the idea that mutations provide the raw material of evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of malformations and monstrosities, and rather than a constructive process, the mutation appears to be a destructive process ".12 Whenever mutant insects were put to compete with normal ones, the result was always the same. G. Ledyard Stebbins said: "After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated" .13 They were not able to compete because it did not constitute an improvement, but degenerate forms and disadvantaged.
9 In his book, The Wellsprings of Life (The source of life), the science writer Isaac Asimov admits: "The majority of mutations are worse." But then he says: "In the long run, no doubt, the mutations allow evolution di progredire e svilupparsi”.14 Ma è così? Un qualsiasi processo che provocasse danni più di 999 volte su 1.000 sarebbe ritenuto benefico? Volendo costruire una casa, vi rivolgereste a un costruttore che, per ogni lavoro fatto bene, ne facesse migliaia di altri male? Se un automobilista prendesse migliaia di decisioni sbagliate per ogni decisione giusta, andreste in macchina con lui? Se un chirurgo commettesse migliaia di errori per ogni intervento riuscito, vi fareste operare da lui?
10 Una volta il genetista Dobzhansky disse: “È difficile che un incidente, un cambiamento casuale, in un meccanismo delicato lo migliori. È improbabile che infilando una bacchetta nel meccanismo di un orologio o in un apparecchio the radio is made to work better ".15 So ask yourself: Is it reasonable to believe that all the cells, organs, limbs and processes that are extraordinarily complex in living have been built by a mechanism breaker?
mutations produce something new?
11 If all mutations were beneficial, they could produce something new? No. A mutation can only determine the variation of a feature that already exists. Produces variety, but never something new.
12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives the example of what could happen thanks to a favorable mutation: "A plant in an arid area could have a gene mutant that makes you develop larger and stronger roots. The plant would be more likely to survive compared to other plants of its species, because its roots can absorb more water ".16 But it appeared it might be something new? No, the plant is always the same. You are not evolving into something else.
13 Mutations can change the color or texture of the hair of a person. But the hair remain hair. Do not you ever turn in pens. Mutations can change the shape of a hand, producing abnormal fingers. Sometimes it can also take a hand with six fingers or some other malformation. But it is always a hand. Never becomes something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor ever will.
experiments with Drosophila
14 With regard to mutations, few can match those experiments performed extensively on the common fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster. Since the early twentieth century, scientists have exposed millions of these insects to X-rays This has increased the frequency of mutations over one hundred times normal.
15 After all these decades, what were the results of experiments? Dobzhansky, I will mention one: "The well-defined mutants Drosophila, the subject of much research in classical genetics, they are almost without exception, lower vitality, fertility and longevity to the insect free normal "17 Another result was that the mutations have never produced anything new . The fruit flies showed defects in the wings, the legs, body and on the other kind, but always remained fruit flies. And, coupling between their insect mutants, it was found that after a certain number of generations, began again to be born normal fruit flies. In nature, these normal fruit flies have finally got the better of the weaker mutants, surviving and perpetuating the Drosophila in its original form.
16 The hereditary code, DNA, has the unique ability to repair their genetic damage. This contributes to the preservation of the type of organism that is encoded. An article in Science magazine Le talks about how "the life of each body and its continuity from generation to generation" are secured by "enzymes that continuously, repair genetic lesions. The article states: "In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce a response in emergency situations which are synthesized greater amounts of repair enzymes"
.18 17 In the book Darwin Retried, the author recounts the following about the late and esteemed geneticist Richard Goldschmidt: "After observing for many years, Drosophila mutations, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, to his disappointment, were so hopelessly small that even if one item had taken place one thousand mutations, there would still have been no new species ".19
The Biston betularia
18 texts in the evolutionary Biston betularia (also known as a butterfly "geometry of birch trees") of England is often cited as a modern example of evolution in action. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia says: "This is the most dramatic evolutionary change that man has ever been observed "20 Jastrow, in his book" Red Giants and White Dwarfs, having recalled the torment of Darwin for not being able to demonstrate a single case of evolution of species, he adds: "If she had known had at hand a sample that would provide proof that he sought. It was an extremely rare event ".21 The case in question was of course one of the butterfly above.
19 What happened to Biston betularia? At first, the lighter varieties of this butterfly was more widespread than dark. The variety is clearly confused with the better light color of the trunks of trees and was therefore more protected dall'insidia birds. But later, after years and years of industrial pollution, the trunk of the trees became darker. Now the light color of the butterflies had become a danger, because the birds to determine more quickly and to eat. Consequently, the darker variety of Biston betularia, considered a mutant, survive more easily because the birds had difficulty in identifying the trees blackened by soot. The darker varieties soon became the dominant one. But the 20
Biston betularia was perhaps evolving into some other kind of insect? No, it was always the same butterfly, just a different color. Therefore, the British medical journal has criticized the On Call use this example as alleged proof of evolution, saying: "This is an excellent demonstration of the role of mimicry, but, since it begins and ends with butterflies without seeing the formation of any new species, is quite irrelevant as a evidence for evolution ".22 21 The
Biston betularia incorrect assertion that is evolving is common to several other cases. For example, since some bacteria are resistant to antibiotics, some people talk about evolution in action. But the germs more resistant germs are always the same: it is evolving into something else. And he acknowledges that the change could be determined non da mutazioni, ma dal fatto che alcuni germi erano immuni fin dall’inizio. Quando gli altri sono stati uccisi dai farmaci, quelli immuni si sono moltiplicati acquistando il predominio. Il libro Evoluzione dallo spazio dice: “Dubitiamo però che in questi casi possa trovarsi qualcosa di più della selezione di geni già esistenti”.23
22 Lo stesso processo può essersi verificato anche nel caso di certi insetti risultati immuni a determinati insetticidi. Questi veleni o uccidevano gli insetti con cui venivano in contatto o risultavano inefficaci contro di loro. Gli insetti morti non potevano ovviamente sviluppare alcuna resistenza al veleno. La sopravvivenza degli altri poteva significare che erano immuni già dall’inizio. Questa immunità è un fattore genetico presente in certi insetti ma non in altri. In ogni caso, gli insetti rimanevano della stessa specie. Non si evolvevano in qualcos’altro.
“Secondo la loro specie”
23 Ancora una volta le mutazioni confermano quanto formulato nel primo capitolo di Genesi: I viventi si riproducono solo “secondo la loro specie”. La ragione è che il codice genetico impedisce alla pianta o all’animale di discostarsi troppo dalla media. Può esserci un’ampia varietà (come si vede, ad esempio, fra gli uomini, fra i gatti o fra i cani), ma non fino al punto che un organismo vivente possa trasformarsi in un altro. Ciò è confermato da all experiments on mutations. It also confirmed the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from other life and the body pre-existing parent and its progeny are the same "species."
24 This is also confirmed by controlled breeding experiments. By crosses, the scientists tried to produce continuous variations in different animals and plants. They wanted to see if over time could produce new forms of life. What was the outcome? The regular On Call reports: "Experts in the field of controlled reproduction usually found that after several generations reaches an optimum beyond which further improvements are impossible, and that si è formata nessuna nuova specie . . . Anziché sostenere l’evoluzione, quindi, le tecniche di riproduzione controllata sembrerebbero smentirla”.24
25 Più o meno la stessa cosa fa notare la rivista Science: “Le specie hanno in effetti la capacità di subire lievi modificazioni nelle loro caratteristiche fisiche e d’altro genere, ma questa capacità è limitata, e a lungo andare si riflette in una oscillazione intorno a valori medi”.25 Pertanto ciò che i viventi ereditano non è la possibilità di continuare a cambiare, ma, piuttosto, (1) stabilità e (2) un campo di variabilità limitato.
26 Il libro Molecules to Living Cells (From molecules to living cells) and then says: "The cells of a carrot or liver of mice stably maintain their identity and organ tissue after several cycles of reproduction" .26 And Symbiosis in Cell Evolution (Symbiosis in the evolution of the cell ) says: "All life. . . you play with incredible fidelity ".27 Even Scientific American noted:" The living differ greatly in shape, but this is remarkably constant within any given line of descent: pigs are pigs, and the oak trees remain oak one generation after another. " 28 And a science writer observed: "I always bring roses roses and never camellias. And the goats give birth to kids, lambs ever. " Mutations, he concludes, "can not explain evolution as a whole, that is why there are fish, reptiles, birds and mammals" .29
27 The variability within the species helps to explain something that helped form the hypothesis evolution in the minds of Darwin. When he was in the Galapagos, Darwin observed the finches. These birds were descended from those of South America, where it apparently had migrated. But presented with curious differences, for example in the form of the beak. Darwin interpreted it as a case of evolution in progress. But in fact, was merely one of many Examples of varieties within a species, genetic structure allowed by the individual. The finches were still finches. Were not transformed into something else, nor would never do. 28
What Genesis says it is therefore in full harmony with the scientific facts. When you plant the seeds, they produce only "after their kind", so that you can plant a garden, some of the dependability of this law. When a cat gives birth, children are still kittens. When humans become parents, and children are always human beings. There are variations in color, size and shape, but always within the limits of the species. I personally have never seen anything different? Nor does it happen to others.
are not a basis for the evolution
29 The conclusion is clear. Regardless of their quantity, accidental genetic changes can not turn into another living species. The French biologist Jean Rostand once said, "No, I just can not convince me that these 'slips' genetic have been able, with the help of natural selection, even with the advantage of the immense periods of time on evolution , to produce the entire world, with its profusion of forms and its structural improvements, its extraordinary 'adjustments' ".30
30 In modo analogo, il genetista C. H. Waddington disse a proposito delle capacità attribuite alle mutazioni: “Questa è in realtà la teoria secondo cui, partendo con quattordici righe qualsiasi in inglese coerente e cambiando una lettera alla volta — conservando solo quelle parti che hanno ancora un senso — si finirà per comporre uno dei sonetti di Shakespeare. . . . mi sembra una logica folle, e penso che dovremmo poter fare di meglio”.31
31 La verità, come dichiara il prof. John Moore, è questa: “Se rigorosamente esaminata e analizzata, qualsiasi asserzione dogmatica . . . secondo cui le mutazioni genetiche siano la materia prima of any evolutionary process involving natural selection is the expression of a myth. "
. . . The logical conclusion
Putting evolution and creation in comparison with reality, it is not clear which of the two corresponds to the facts and what they are up against? Both the testimony of the living world that those in the fossil record on life forms existed long ago lead to the same conclusion: life is created, not evolved.
Life is not therefore have originated in some unknown "soup" primordial. Men do not come from apelike ancestors. The many forms of life were instead created as distinct families. Could multiply each giving rise to a great variety within their own "species" but could not cross the boundary that separates one species from the other. This boundary, as is clearly seen among the living, is guaranteed by sterility. And the separation between the species is assured by the genetic code of each characteristic.
But, in addition to the correspondence between reality and predictions based on the schema creative, there are many other evidences of the existence of a Creator. Think of the extraordinary complexity of the project and the things that are on earth and in the rest of the universe. These also prove the existence of an Intelligence supreme. In later chapters we will examine some of these wonders, the majestic universe to the complex structures of the microscopic world.
0 comments:
Post a Comment