Evolution Simplified

I think any evolutionist, by necessity, eventualy will have to rest their claims on the transfer and mutation of genes. The reason why they are so adamant on this point is that the theory would collapse without it. Mathematician and molecular biologist, Harold Morowitz, calculated the odds that just one paramecium arranging DNA by chance, is: 1 in 10 to the billionth power. To help aggrandize the enormity of this improbability, 10 to the 50th power is considered, ”absolute zero.’ When you reach absolute zero, it is so improbable that we might as well say that it is impossible. That's just to arrive at any lifeforms at all. But since the First Cause can never be witnessed again, lets just speak about already extant beings for the time being. The fact is most mutations are silent. They are mostly benign deletions from copying errors in the genes. Its important to note, however, that the only reason most mutations are benign is because of specific cells that serve to repair mutations. In fact, it is their only function. Therefore, in all actuality, all mutations are truly harmful, especially if these specific cells, themselves, are the product of a mutation. There would be nothing to stop these free radicals from culturing rogue, mutated cells without their assistance. We now know that genes are composed of DNA strands, a magnificently complex molecule. DNA is an encoded message or language. The language has four letters, which form 64, three letter words. The function of the gene acts as a blueprint to tell the cell how to build a particular protein, of which I already described in a previous post how astronmically improbable it is just to arrive at one protein. Anyway, the genes are provided with basic instructions for creating protein insulin, myoglobin, hemoglobin, etc. Though most mutations are neutral, a very large percentage is devastatingly harmful. A prime example of a harmful mutation would be cancer, which I already touched upon. In the most rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial. This kind of mutation is not truly advantageous, however. For instance, many evolutionists use Sickle Cell Anemia as a prime example of a good mutation. It is premised upon the idea that the disease effects mostly the Negro population, and because the Negro population is greatest in the malaria stricken continent of Africa, it has served to benefit their survival, because SCA can act as a barrier to Malaria. They also cite that SCA only effects people adversely when it is carried through both the female and the male’s chromosomes. So, if the mutant gene is found in only one host, the individual is known as a ”carrier.’ He or she carries the gene and it serves as an immunity. What they fail to realize is, the more individuals that procreate, the greater and more frequent the disease will be, and the less the immunity will be. The ”immunity’ will literally be bred out of existance. Aside from this, its as if no one has taken into consideration how terrible this disease really is? So, you don’t have Malaria, but now you have Sickle Cell Anemia? I just don’t see how that is any better since SCA is a degenerative disease that prevents the proper oxygenation of cells. The red blood cells become deformed, taking the form of a crescent moon (hence the name, Sickle cell), and thus, prevent hemoglobin from properly passing through and oxygenating the body. If your cells do not receive the proper amount of oxygen then they will become ischemic. If the cells starve for oxygen, they die. If your cells die, you die. It’s as simple as that. So, that's how I disagree that mutation could be the propulsion of macroevolution. In other words, it effects reproduction because the more people breed, the more this disease will effect us by removing the immunity. Therefore, I don't agree that SCA, or any other mutation, could be advantageous.... (I'll be cautious here): There are no truly advantageous mutations that I know of and I've heard lots of testimonies on it.

I think any evolutionist, by necessity, eventualy will have to rest their claims on the transfer and mutation of genes. The reason why they are so adamant on this point is that the theory would collapse without it.Mathematician and molecular biologist, Harold Morowitz, calculated the odds that just one paramecium arranging DNA by chance, is: 1 in 10 to the billionth power. To help aggrandize the enormity of this improbability, 10 to the 50th power is considered, ”absolute zero.’ When you reach absolute zero, it is so improbable that we might as well say that it is impossible.That's just to arrive at any lifeforms at all. But since the First Cause can never be witnessed again, lets just speak about already extant beings for the time being. The fact is most mutations are silent. They are mostly benign deletions from copying errors in the genes. Its important to note, however, that the only reason most mutations are benign is because of specific cells that serve to repair mutations. In fact, it is their only function. Therefore, in all actuality, all mutations are truly harmful, especially if these specific cells, themselves, are the product of a mutation.There would be nothing to stop these free radicals from culturing rogue, mutated cells without their assistance. We now know that genes are composed of DNA strands, a magnificently complex molecule. DNA is an encoded message or language. The language has four letters, which form 64, three letter words. The function of the gene acts as a blueprint to tell the cell how to build a particular protein, of which I already described in a previous post how astronmically improbable it is just to arrive at one protein.Anyway, the genes are provided with basic instructions for creating protein insulin, myoglobin, hemoglobin, etc. Though most mutations are neutral, a very large percentage is devastatingly harmful. A prime example of a harmful mutation would be cancer, which I already touched upon.In the most rare occasions, a mutation can be beneficial. This kind of mutation is not truly advantageous, however. For instance, many evolutionists use Sickle Cell Anemia as a prime example of a good mutation. It is premised upon the idea that the disease effects mostly the Negro population, and because the Negro population is greatest in the malaria stricken continent of Africa, it has served to benefit their survival, because SCA can act as a barrier to Malaria. They also cite that SCA only effects people adversely when it is carried through both the female and the male’s chromosomes.So, if the mutant gene is found in only one host, the individual is known as a ”carrier.’ He or she carries the gene and it serves as an immunity. What they fail to realize is, the more individuals that procreate, the greater and more frequent the disease will be, and the less the immunity will be. The ”immunity’ will literally be bred out of existance. Aside from this, its as if no one has taken into consideration how terrible this disease really is?So, you don’t have Malaria, but now you have Sickle Cell Anemia? I just don’t see how that is any better since SCA is a degenerative disease that prevents the proper oxygenation of cells. The red blood cells become deformed, taking the form of a crescent moon (hence the name, Sickle cell), and thus, prevent hemoglobin from properly passing through and oxygenating the body. If your cells do not receive the proper amount of oxygen then they will become ischemic. If the cells starve for oxygen, they die. If your cells die, you die. It’s as simple as that.So, that's how I disagree that mutation could be the propulsion of macroevolution. In other words, it effects reproduction because the more people breed, the more this disease will effect us by removing the immunity. Therefore, I don't agree that SCA, or any other mutation, could be advantageous.... (I'll be cautious here): There are no truly advantageous mutations that I know of and I've heard lots of testimonies on it.

Being that that we all have A,T,C,G structure, at some point if a true macroevolutionary progress due to mutation was going to occur, then it would have made itself evident by now.

If there wasn't, we'd expect to see humans and chimps able to procreate or a chance mutation so catastrophic that a human could actually birth a Chimpanzee (or whatever) for no good reason.

No, its the same letters, but the sequence is so vastly different so as to not create these abberations.

But the kind of genetic tailoring macroevolution speaks of would be required of a Programmer to institute a new policy.

Even if you were to use Artificial Intelligence to show that it can do it all on its own, it was still required of a programmer to insert the capability to begin with.

In any case, there does seem to be an inviolate gulf affixed between us. If there wasn't, we'd expect to see humans and chimps able to procreate...

...or a chance mutation so catastrophic that a human could actually birth a Chimpanzee (or whatever) for no good reason.

Even if you were to use Artificial Intelligence to show that it can do it all on its own, it was still required of a programmer to insert the capability to begin with.

But the kind of genetic tailoring macroevolution speaks of would be required of a Programmer to institute a new policy. Even if you were to use Artificial Intelligence to show that it can do it all on its own, it was still required of a programmer to insert the capability to begin with.

The problem is, I can't think of one instance in where cancer, Down Syndrome, or Cystic Fibrosis benefitted anyone in any way.

One of the human chromosomes looks exactly like two chimpanzee chromosomes joined end-to-end. So the reason that humans have one less chromosome than chimps is that sometime after the human/chimp split, a pair of chromosomes joined together.Now, this is not sufficient by itself to prevent interbreeding; I think that there may be examples of this type of chromosome fusion where the individuals with now differing numbers were still interfertile. In fact, they have to be interfertile, otherwise that first individual with the fused chromosomes could not pass on the fused chromosomes into the next generation.So, if humans and chimps are not interfertile, it is because of greater differences in the genome than simply the chromosome number

as soon as earth could possibly support life as we know it, there it was! This raises a lot of very interesting questions