No positive mutations + no transition fossils + no new
information makes Evolution = bad science
Evolution requires positive mutations to increase information for the eventual change from a pool of matter to a human being. The problem is science has a serious problem locating positive mutations.
Professor Maciej Giertych, M.A. (Oxford), Ph.D. (Toronto),
head of Genetics Dept. at the Institute of Dendrology in Poland and editor of two scientific journals:
“I could easily pursue my career without ever mentioning evolution. Perhaps the most evident misinformation in textbooks is the suggestion that microevolution is a small-scale example of macroevolution. Microevolution, formation of races, is a fact. Populations adapt to specific environments with the more successful alleles increasing in numbers and others declining in frequencies or disappearing altogether. Change can also occur due to accidental loss of alleles (genetic drift) in small isolated populations. Both amount to decline in genetic information. Macroevolution requires its increase. A useful mutation (e.g. an orange without seeds) is not the equivalent of a positive mutation. I felt uneasy lecturing about positive mutations when I could not give an example. There are very many examples of negative and neutral mutations, but none I know of which I could present as a documented example of a positive one. Much evolutionary publicity is attached to forms that develop resistance to man-made chemicals. Even if originating from mutation (it could be a rare neutral allele always present in the population but springing into prominence because of the use of the herbicide) this would be no more than a neutral mutation; not depriving the protein of its function but neither creating a new function for it. So where is the evolution? What do we see in the short time interval available to our cognition? An increase in the number of useful alleles or a decrease? An increase in the number of species or a decrease? An increase in information in nature or loss of it? Is nature moving from chaos to ever-increasing organization, or from an organized state towards ever-increasing chaos? Evolution is not a conclusion drawn from observations. It is an ideology to which observations are applied when convenient and ignored when not.”
Sir Ronald Aylmer Fisher, statistician, evolutionary biologist, geneticist,
Richard Dawkins called him “the greatest biologist since Darwin”:
Let’s say that one point mutation occurs and gives an individual a positive value of 0.1 percent for survival and passing on that positive gene. Let us also say that this population needs 5 offspring to keep the population stable or 20 percent growth. The survival rate increase would be 20.02 for the mutation. Sir Ronald Fisher calculated that most mutations with positive survival values would not survive, and he believed that the answer was many positive mutations.
He said: “A mutation, even if favorable, will have only a very small chance of establishing itself in the species if it occurs once only.”
Fisher R.A. (1958). The Genetical Theory of Natural Selection, Oxford, Second revised edition, New York: Dover.
Lee M. Spetner, physicist at John Hopkins University
“Our organism with a 0.1% survival factor would have one chance in 500 of surviving. If there were 500 organisms with the mutation their odds would be about 5 out of 8. With 1000 with the same mutation their odds would be about 6 out of 7 and with 2500 organisms with the same mutation the odds are about even. What are the odds of 2500 organisms having the same point mutation (it has to be the same for that particular information to get into the genome) in a population? The chances that 500 organisms would have the very same point mutation in the very same nucleotide is 1 in 3.6 x 102,738.”
Lee M. Spentner, Not By Chance – Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, The Judica Press, New York, p. 103.
Even against a wall of opposition to mutations being positive and greater opposition to those mutations being able to survive by leading scientists, evolutionists cling to this theory with a death-grip. If their theory is correct, the results should be evident in an overwhelming amount of transitional fossils.
Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum,
editor of a scientific journal, published author on evolution.
“I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a paleontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line – there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.”
“Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no: there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science, for there is no way to put them to the test.”
David B. Kitts, PhD (Zoology), Head Curator Dept. of Geology Stoval Museum
“Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of “seeing” evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of “gaps” in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them.”
The following are the different types of Evolution: #
- Cosmic Evolution: The origin of time, space and matter, by the Big Bang
- Chemical Evolution: The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
- Stellar and Planetary Evolution: The origin of stars and planets.
- Organic Evolution: The origin of Life.
- Macro-Evolution: The changing from one kind of species to another kind of species.
- Micro-Evolution: The variation within kinds of species.
Observations about the different types of Evolution
- Of the above supposed 6 types of Evolution, only the last one, Micro-Evolution, has ever been observed.
- The other 5 types of Evolution are all theoretical, and have never been observed.
- They cannot be reproduced in a laboratory, and do not therefore fall under the strict definition of a science.
# Special thanks to Redditor TheBandersnatch/ for the types of evolution.
One final quote:
Dr. Werner Gitt, director German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology:
“There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.”
- Countless continuing positive genetic mutations are necessary for evolution to take place.
- Genetic mutations have not been shown to produce positive, beneficial lasting changes.
- These mutations should lead to overwhelming transitional fossils.
- Leading evolutionists admit a severe lack of transitional fossils.
- Micro-evolution is the only form of evolution to ever be observed.
- New information has never been observed to materialize.
All these findings come from well-respected evolutionary scientists, PhDs, museum curators, and published authors.
Evolutionists claim that Creationists just don’t understand the evidences of evolution. I think I see it clearly. The evidence is overwhelmingly poor. According to these claims, in my opinion – It would be a hard push to call evolution a real science.