Make $$$ Selling Ads
  • Breathing-Fragile-Life conscientious-ness education faith God humility insights Joan Winifred knowledge mind food science & spirituality study things i learned trust Truth

    monkey see = see monkey = understand(?) monkey!

    peakaboo-eye-see-you

    Greetings “Human” Reader🙂  This is the third post in a series:
    2. unmuting-mutations and 1. evolution-pollution  debunking the so-called “theory”…of Evolution…does NOT meet the criteria for theory: “In science, the term “theory” refers to “a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

    OOPS, excuse me;) let me be more “specific” for any who may squabble over semantics…”Scientific” Theory: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world.” [excerpted on-line dictionary descriptions/definitions of term(s): “theory” and specifically “Scientific” theory that most agree on.]

    Relevant excerpted Readings for You:) My-Fellow-Human-Skilled-Reasoning-Reader(s) and TRUTH-Thinker(s)-for-Your-Self-er(s)!!:) 

    To illustrate: It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid fact, reality, truth.

    […]astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “To their chagrin [scientists] have no clear-cut answer, because chemists have never succeeded in reproducing nature’s experiments on the creation of life out of nonliving matter. Scientists do not know how that happened.” He added: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.”⁠8

    Summarizing some of the unsolved problems confronting evolution, Francis Hitching observed: “In three crucial areas where [the modern evolution theory] can be tested, it has failed: The fossil record reveals a pattern of evolutionary leaps rather than gradual changeGenes are a powerful stabilizing mechanism whose main function is to prevent new forms evolving. Random step-by-step mutations at the molecular level cannot explain the organized and growing complexity of life.”​—Italics added.  (my highlights)

    25 Then Hitching (an evolutionist and author of the book The Neck of the Giraffe) concluded by making this observation: “To put it at its mildest, one may question an evolutionary theory so beset by doubts among even those who teach it. If Darwinism is truly the great unifying principle of biology, it encompasses extraordinarily large areas of ignorance. It fails to explain some of the most basic questions of all: how lifeless chemicals came alive, what rules of grammar lie behind the genetic code, how genes shape the form of living things.” In fact, Hitching stated that he considered the modern theory of evolution “so inadequate that it deserves to be treated as a matter of faith.”⁠19

    [Excerpted Chapter 2, Disagreements About Evolution—Why? Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? pp. 14-24]

    Nope, my SOLID faith aka “accurate belief system” is NOT based on credulity (nor doubts) nor (seemingly complicated) fantasy. Or deceptive-imaginative-works of… fictitious/fabricated art(?)

    some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.⁠Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”⁠And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”⁠4

    Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. […], there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.

    4. From evolution’s standpoint, why is the absence of living “ape-men” so strange?

    From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

    How Much Fossil Evidence?

    5. What impression do the accounts leave about the fossil evidence for human evolution?

    From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day?

    6. (a) Were earlier theories about human evolution based on fossil evidence? (b) Why could evolution gain acceptance without solid evidence?

    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”⁠5

    7-9. How much fossil evidence for human evolution is there now?

    After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”⁠7

    Similarly, the book Origins admits: “As we move farther along the path of evolution towards humans the going becomes distinctly uncertain, again owing to the paucity of fossil evidence.”⁠Science magazine adds: “The primary scientific evidence is a pitifully small array of bones from which to construct man’s evolutionary history. One anthropologist has compared the task to that of reconstructing the plot of War and Peace with 13 randomly selected pages.”⁠9

    Just how sparse is the fossil record regarding “ape-men”? Note the following. Newsweek: “‘You could put all the fossils on the top of a single desk,’ said Elwyn Simons of Duke University.”⁠10 The New York Times: “The known fossil remains of man’s ancestors would fit on a billiard table. That makes a poor platform from which to peer into the mists of the last few million years.”⁠11 Science Digest: “The remarkable fact is that all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin! . . . Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record.And the true origin of modern humans​—of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings—​is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter.”⁠12

    (Fossil “Evidence” ?!! Audacity Paucity…PITIFUL!…time to bury evolution! in a creation coffin)

    10. What does the evidence show about the appearance of modern-type humans?

    10 Modern-type humans, with the capacity to reason, plan, invent, build on previous knowledge and use complex languages, appear suddenly in the fossil record. Gould, in his book The Mismeasure of Man, notes: “We have no evidence for biological change in brain size or structure since Homo sapiens appeared in the fossil record some fifty thousand years ago.”⁠13 Thus, the book The Universe Within asks: “What caused evolution . . . to produce, as if overnight, modern humankind with its highly special brain?”⁠14 Evolution is unable to answer. But could the answer lie in the creation of a very complex, different creature?

    Where Are the “Links”?

    11. What is admittedly “the rule” in the fossil record?

    11 However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠16

    12. In what has the lack of links resulted?

    12 Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠17

    Family Tree…

    15 The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”⁠21

    16. Why did two scientists omit a family tree for evolution in their book?

    16 In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

    17, 18. (a) How can what some evolutionists consider “lost” be “found”? (b) How does the fossil record confirm this?

    17 Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.”⁠22 Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record​—fully human, just as we are?

    18 The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

    19, 20. On what are drawings of “ape-men” based?

    19 However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face​—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”⁠23

    20 Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”⁠24Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”⁠25

    21. What, really, are the depictions of “ape-men”?

    21 Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”⁠26 So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.”⁠27 Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”⁠28

    22. How have many supporters of evolution been deceived?

    22 In their desire to find evidence of “ape-men,” some scientists have been taken in by outright fraud, for example, the Piltdown man in 1912. For about 40 years it was accepted as genuine by most of the evolutionary community. Finally, in 1953, the hoax was uncovered when modern techniques revealed that human and ape bones had been put together and artificially aged. In another instance, an apelike “missing link” was drawn up and presented in the press. But it was later acknowledged that the “evidence” consisted of only one tooth that belonged to an extinct form of pig.⁠29

    What Were They?

    23. What really were some fossils that had been presumed to be ancestors of man?

    23 If “ape-man” reconstructions are not valid, then what were those ancient creatures whose fossil bones have been found? One of these earliest mammals claimed to be in the line of man is a small, rodentlike animal said to have lived about 70 million years ago. In their book Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, Donald Johanson and Maitland Edey wrote: “They were insect-eating quadrupeds about the size and shape of squirrels.”⁠30 Richard Leakey called the mammal a “rat-like primate.”⁠31 But is there any solid evidence that these tiny animals were the ancestors of humans? No, instead only wishful speculation. No transitional stages have ever linked them with anything except what they were: small, rodentlike mammals.

    24. What problems arise in trying to establish Aegyptopithecus as an ancestor of humans?

    24 Next on the generally accepted list, with an admitted gap of about 40 million years, are fossils found in Egypt and named Aegyptopithecus​—Egypt ape. This creature is said to have lived about 30 million years ago. Magazines, newspapers and books have displayed pictures of this small creature with headings such as: “Monkey-like creature was our ancestor.” (Time)⁠32 “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes.” (The New York Times)⁠33 Aegyptopithecus is an ancestor which we share with living apes.” (Origins)⁠34 But where are the links between it and the rodent before it? Where are the links to what is placed after it in the evolutionary lineup? None have been found.

    The Rise and Fall of “Ape-Men”

    25, 26. (a) What claim was made about Ramapithecus? (b) On what fossil evidence was it reconstructed so as to appear as an “ape-man”?

    25 Following another admittedly gigantic gap in the fossil record, another fossil creature had been presented as the first humanlike ape. It was said to have lived about 14 million years ago and was called Ramapithecus​—Rama’s ape (Rama was a mythical prince of India). Fossils of it were found in India about half a century ago. From these fossils was constructed an apelike creature, upright, on two limbs. Of it Origins stated: “As far as one can say at the moment, it is the first representative of the human family.”⁠35

    26 What was the fossil evidence for this conclusion? The same publication remarked: “The evidence concerning Ramapithecus is considerable​—though in absolute terms it remains tantalizingly small: fragments of upper and lower jaws, plus a collection of teeth.”⁠36 Do you think that this was “considerable” enough “evidence” to reconstruct an upright “ape-man” ancestor of humans? Yet, this mostly hypothetical creature was drawn by artists as an “ape-man,” and pictures of it flooded evolutionary literature​—all on the basis of jawbone fragments and teeth! Still, as The New York Times reported, for decades Ramapithecus “sat as securely as anything can at the base of the human evolutionary tree.”⁠37

    27. Later evidence proved what regarding Ramapithecus?

    27 However, that is no longer the case. Recent and more complete fossil finds revealed that Ramapithecus closely resembled the present-day ape family. So New Scientist now declares: “Ramapithecus cannot have been the first member of the human line.”⁠38 Such new information provoked the following question in Natural History magazine: “How did Ramapithecus, . . . reconstructed only from teeth and jaws​—without a known pelvis, limb bones, or skull—​sneak into this manward-marching procession?”⁠39 Obviously, a great deal of wishful thinking must have gone into such an effort to make the evidence say what it does not say.

    28, 29. What claim was made for Australopithecus?

    28 Another gap of vast proportions lies between that creature and the next one that had been listed as an “ape-man” ancestor. This is called Australopithecus​—southern ape. Fossils of it were first found in southern Africa in the 1920’s. It had a small apelike braincase, heavy jawbone and was pictured as walking on two limbs, stooped over, hairy and apish looking. It was said to have lived beginning about three or four million years ago. In time it came to be accepted by nearly all evolutionists as man’s ancestor.

    29 For instance, the book The Social Contract noted: “With one or two exceptions all competent investigators in this field now agree that the australopithecines . . . are actual human ancestors.”⁠40 The New York Times declared: “It was Australopithecus . . . that eventually evolved into Homo sapiens, or modern man.”⁠41 And in Man, Time, and Fossils Ruth Moore said: “By all the evidence men at last had met their long unknown, early ancestors.” Emphatically she declared: “The evidence was overwhelming . . . the missing link had at long last been found.”⁠42

    30, 31. What does later evidence show regarding Australopithecus?

    30 But when the evidence for anything actually is flimsy or nonexistent, or based on outright deception, sooner or later the claim comes to nothing. This has proved to be the case with many past examples of presumed “ape-men.”

    31 So, too, with Australopithecus. More research has disclosed that its skull “differed from that of humans in more ways than its smaller brain capacity.”⁠43 Anatomist Zuckerman wrote: “When compared with human and simian [ape] skulls, the Australopithecine skull is in appearance overwhelmingly simian​—not human.[..]44 He also said: “Our findings leave little doubt that . . . Australopithecus resembles not Homo sapiens but the living monkeys and apes.”⁠45Donald Johanson also said: “Australopithecines . . . were not men.”⁠46Similarly Richard Leakey called it “unlikely that our direct ancestors are evolutionary descendants of the australopithecines.”⁠47

    32. If such creatures were still living today, how would they be regarded?

    32 If any australopithecines were found alive today, they would be put in zoos with other apes. No one would call them “ape-men.” The same is true of other fossil “cousins” that resemble it, such as a smaller type of australopithecine called “Lucy.” Of it Robert Jastrow says: “This brain was not large in absolute size; it was a third the size of a human brain.”⁠48 Obviously, it too was simply an “ape.” In fact, New Scientist said that “Lucy” had a skull “very like a chimpanzee’s.”⁠49

    “Serious” Stuff Studied for humble Reflection:

    “Why did “inferior” apes and monkeys survive, but not a single “superior” “ape-man”?”

    “There is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take (evolutionists’) theorising out of the realms of fantasy”

    “Based on just teeth and parts of jawbones, Ramapithecus was called “the first representative of the human family.” Further evidence showed that it was not”

    “As is the case in the fossil record, today there is great variety in size and shape of bone structure in humans. But all belong to the human “kind””

    “Piltdown man was accepted as a “missing link” for 40 years until exposed as a fraud. Parts of an orangutan jaw and teeth had been combined with parts of a human skull”

    Small & Tall…

    36. What are the facts regarding apelike fossils of the past, and humanlike fossils?

    36 Thus, the evidence is clear that belief in “ape-men” is unfounded. Instead, humans have all the earmarks of being created​—separate and distinct from any animal. Humans reproduce only after their own kind. They do so today and have always done so in the past. Any apelike creatures that lived in the past were just that​—apes, or monkeys—​not humans. And fossils of ancient humans that differ slightly from humans of today simply demonstrate variety within the human family, just as today we have many varieties living side by side. There are seven-foot humans and there are pygmies, with varying sizes and shapes of skeletons. But all belong to the same human “kind,” not animal “kind.” [excerpted readings:  Chapter 7, “Ape-Men”—What Were They? pp. 83-98]

    {draft 7/25/18 @ 10:57 p.m.

    too exhausted to finish this tonight@11:01 p.m.}

    In my living world…As a full-grown, heterosexual, mature woman…i can clearly d-i-s-t-i-n-g-u-i-s-h between a full-grown, heterosexual, mature man…AND a monkey at the zoo!🙂 Can You:) ?

    See Man = Understand Man(?)(!)

    okay, time for references and footnotes, eh?!

    Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? Chapter 2, Disagreements about Evolution–Why? footnotes:

    8. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 19.

    19. The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 103, 107, 108, 117.

    Chapter 7

    “Ape-Men”​—What Were They?

    1. Science 81, “How Ape Became Man,” by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, April 1981, p. 45.

    2. Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind, by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey, 1981, p. 31.

    3. Boston Magazine, “Stephen Jay Gould: Defending Darwin,” by Carl Oglesby, February 1981, p. 52.

    4. Lucy, p. 27.

    5. The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, “Fifty Years of Studies on Human Evolution,” by Sherwood Washburn, May 1982, pp. 37, 41.

    6. Spectator, The University of Iowa, April 1973, p. 4.

    7. New Scientist, “Whatever Happened to Zinjanthropus?” by John Reader, March 26, 1981, p. 802.

    8. Origins, by Richard E. Leakey and Roger Lewin, 1977, p. 55.

    9. Science, “The Politics of Paleoanthropology,” by Constance Holden, August 14, 1981, p. 737.

    10. Newsweek, “Bones and Prima Donnas,” by Peter Gwynne, John Carey and Lea Donosky, February 16, 1981, p. 77.

    11. The New York Times, “How Old Is Man?” by Nicholas Wade, October 4, 1982, p. A18.

    12. Science Digest, “The Water People,” by Lyall Watson, May 1982, p. 44.

    13. The Mismeasure of Man, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1981, p. 324.

    14. The Universe Within, by Morton Hunt, 1982, p. 45.

    15. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.

    16. Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.

    17. Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.

    21. The New York Times, October 4, 1982, p. A18.

    22. Discover, book review by James Gorman of The Myths of Human Evolution by Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, January 1983, pp. 83, 84.

    23. The Biology of Race, by James C. King, 1971, pp. 135, 151.

    24. Science Digest, “Anthro Art,” April 1981, p. 41.

    25. Lucy, p. 286.

    26. New Scientist, book review of Not From the Apes: Man’s Origins and Evolution by Björn Kurtén, August 3, 1972, p. 259.

    27. The Neck of the Giraffe, by Francis Hitching, 1982, p. 224.

    28. Man, God and Magic, by Ivar Lissner, 1961, p. 304.

    29. Missing Links, by John Reader, 1981, pp. 109, 110; Hen’s Teeth and Horse’s Toes, by Stephen Jay Gould, 1983, pp. 201-226.

    30. Lucy, p. 315.

    31. Origins, p. 40.

    32. Time, “Just a Nasty Little Thing,” February 18, 1980, p. 58.

    33. The New York Times, “Monkeylike African Primate Called Common Ancestor of Man and Apes,” by Bayard Webster, February 7, 1980, p. A14; “Fossils Bolster a Theory on Man’s Earliest Ancestor,” by Bayard Webster, January 1, 1984, Section 1, p. 16.

    34. Origins, p. 52.

    35. Ibid., p. 56.

    36. Ibid., p. 67.

    37. The New York Times, “Time to Revise the Family Tree?” February 14, 1982, p. E7.

    38. New Scientist, “Jive Talking,” by John Gribbin, June 24, 1982, p. 873.

    39. Natural History, “False Start of the Human Parade,” by Adrienne L. Zihlman and Jerold M. Lowenstein, August/​September 1979, p. 86.

    40. The Social Contract, by Robert Ardrey, 1970, p. 299.

    41. The New York Times, “Bone Traces Man Back 5 Million Years,” by Robert Reinhold, February 19, 1971, p. 1.

    42. Man, Time, and Fossils, by Ruth Moore, 1961, pp. 5, 6, 316.

    43. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 142.

    44. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, January 1966, p. 93.

    45. Beyond the Ivory Tower, by Solly Zuckerman, 1970, p. 90.

    46. Lucy, p. 38.

    47. Origins, p. 86.

    48. The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe, by Robert Jastrow, 1981, p. 114.

    49. New Scientist, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” by Jeremy Cherfas, January 20, 1983, p. 172.

    published post July 26, 2018 @1:33 p.m., Florida, USA

    Published by:
  • Breathing-Fragile-Life insects insights Joan Winifred justice science & spirituality things i learned trust Truth

    Unmuting Mutations

    “An accident, a random change, in any delicate mechanism can hardly be expected to improve it. Poking a stick into the machinery of one’s watch or one’s radio set will seldom make it work better.”⁠15 ~Geneticist Dobzhansky

    25. Insects have shown what remarkable stability?

    25 For example, insects appeared in the fossil record suddenly and plentifully, without any evolutionary ancestors. Nor have they changed much even down to this day. Regarding the finding of a fossil fly that was labeled “40 million years old,” Dr. George Poinar, Jr., said: “The internal anatomy of these creatures is remarkably similar to what you find in flies today. The wings and legs and head, and even the cells inside, are very modern-looking.”⁠27 And a report in The Globe and Mail of Toronto commented: “In 40 million years of struggling up the evolutionary ladder, they have made almost no discernible progress.”⁠28  [excerpted Letting the Fossil Record Speak, Chapter 5, p.65 Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation? (my highlights)]

    2 “Mutations . . . are the basis of evolution,” states The World Book Encyclopedia.⁠1 Similarly, paleontologist Steven Stanley called mutations “the raw materials” for evolution.⁠2 And geneticist Peo Koller declared that mutations “are necessary for evolutionary progress.”⁠3

    3. What type of mutations would be required for evolution?

    3 However, it is not just any kind of mutation that evolution requires. Robert Jastrow pointed to the need for “a slow accumulation of favorable mutations.”⁠4 And Carl Sagan added: “Mutations​—sudden changes in heredity—​breed true. They provide the raw material of evolution. The environment selects those few mutations that enhance survival, resulting in a series of slow transformations of one lifeform into another, the origin of new species.”⁠5

    4. What difficulty arises with the claim that mutations may be involved in rapid evolutionary changes?

    4 It also has been said that mutations may be a key to the rapid change called for by the “punctuated equilibrium” theory. Writing in Science Digest, John Gliedman stated: “Evolutionary revisionists believe mutations in key regulatory genes may be just the genetic jackhammers their quantum-leap theory requires.” However, British zoologist Colin Patterson observed: “Speculation is free. We know nothing about these regulatory master genes.”⁠6 But aside from such speculations, it is generally accepted that the mutations supposedly involved in evolution are small accidental changes that accumulate over a long period of time.

    5. How do mutations originate?

    5 How do mutations originate? It is thought that most of them occur in the normal process of cell reproduction. But experiments have shown that they also can be caused by external agents such as radiation and chemicals. And how often do they happen? The reproduction of genetic material in the cell is remarkably consistent. Relatively speaking, considering the number of cells that divide in a living thing, mutations do not occur very often. As the Encyclopedia Americana commented, the reproducing “of the DNA chains composing a gene is remarkably accurate. Misprints or miscopying are infrequent accidents.”⁠7

    Are They Helpful or Harmful?

    6, 7. What proportion of mutations are harmful rather than beneficial?

    6 If beneficial mutations are a basis of evolution, what proportion of them are beneficial? There is overwhelming agreement on this point among evolutionists. For example, Carl Sagan declares: “Most of them are harmful or lethal.”⁠8 Peo Koller states: “The greatest proportion of mutations are deleterious to the individual who carries the mutated gene. It was found in experiments that, for every successful or useful mutation, there are many thousands which are harmful.”⁠9

    7 Excluding any “neutral” mutations, then, harmful ones outnumber those that are supposedly beneficial by thousands to one. “Such results are to be expected of accidental changes occurring in any complicated organization,” states the Encyclopædia Britannica.⁠10 That is why mutations are said to be responsible for hundreds of diseases that are genetically determined.⁠11

    8. How do actual results verify an encyclopedia’s observation?

    8 Because of the harmful nature of mutations, the Encyclopedia Americana acknowledged: “The fact that most mutations are damaging to the organism seems hard to reconcile with the view that mutation is the source of raw materials for evolution. Indeed, mutants illustrated in biology textbooks are a collection of freaks and monstrosities and mutation seems to be a destructive rather than a constructive process.”⁠12 When mutated insects were placed in competition with normal ones, the result was always the same. As G. Ledyard Stebbins observed: “After a greater or lesser number of generations the mutants are eliminated.”⁠13 They could not compete because they were not improved but were degenerate and at a disadvantage.

    9, 10. Why is it an unwarranted assumption that mutations account for evolution?

    9 In his book The Wellsprings of Life, science writer Isaac Asimov admitted: “Most mutations are for the worse.” However, he then asserted: “In the long run, to be sure, mutations make the course of evolution move onward and upward.”⁠14 But do they? Would any process that resulted in harm more than 999 times out of 1,000 be considered beneficial? If you wanted a house built, would you hire a builder who, for every correct piece of work, turned out thousands that were defective? If a driver of an automobile made thousands of bad decisions for every good one when driving, would you want to ride with him? If a surgeon made thousands of wrong moves for every right one when operating, would you want him to operate on you?

    11-13. Do mutations ever produce anything new?

    11 Even if all mutations were beneficial, could they produce anything new? No, they could not. A mutation could only result in a variation of a trait that is already there. It provides variety, but never anything new.

    12 The World Book Encyclopedia gives an example of what might happen with a beneficial mutation: “A plant in a dry area might have a mutant gene that causes it to grow larger and stronger roots. The plant would have a better chance of survival than others of its species because its roots could absorb more water.”⁠16 But has anything new appeared? No, it is still the same plant. It is not evolving into something else.

    13 Mutations may change the color or texture of a person’s hair. But the hair will always be hair. It will never turn into feathers. A person’s hand may be changed by mutations. It may have fingers that are abnormal. At times there may even be a hand with six fingers or with some other malformation. But it is always a hand. It never changes into something else. Nothing new is coming into existence, nor can it ever.

    What about…Drosophila melanogaster, common fruit fly??

    Since the early 1900’s, scientists have exposed millions of these flies to X rays. This increased the frequency of mutations to more than a hundred times what was normal.

    15 After all those decades, what did the experiments show? Dobzhansky revealed one result: “The clear-cut mutants of Drosophila, with which so much of the classical research in genetics was done, are almost without exception inferior to wild-type flies in viability, fertility, longevity.”⁠17 Another result was that the mutations never produced anything new. The fruit flies had malformed wings, legs and bodies, and other distortions, but they always remained fruit flies. And when mutated flies were mated with each other, it was found that after a number of generations, some normal fruit flies began to hatch. If left in their natural state, these normal flies would eventually have been the survivors over the weaker mutants, preserving the fruit fly in the form in which it had originally existed.

    16. How does the hereditary code help to preserve organisms?

    16 The hereditary code, the DNA, has a remarkable ability to repair genetic damage to itself. This helps to preserve the kind of organism it is coded for. Scientific American relates how “the life of every organism and its continuity from generation to generation” are preserved “by enzymes that continually repair” genetic damage. The journal states: “In particular, significant damage to DNA molecules can induce an emergency response in which increased quantities of the repair enzymes are synthesized.”⁠18

    17. Why was Goldschmidt disappointed in mutation experiments?

    17 Thus, in the book Darwin Retried the author relates the following about the respected geneticist, the late Richard Goldschmidt: “After observing mutations in fruit flies for many years, Goldschmidt fell into despair. The changes, he lamented, were so hopelessly micro [small] that if a thousand mutations were combined in one specimen, there would still be no new species.”⁠19

    OH! post needs some pepper?? 😉

    18, 19. What claim is made for the peppered moth, and why?

    18 Often in evolutionary literature England’s peppered moth is referred to as a modern example of evolution in progress. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia stated: “This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”⁠20 After observing that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, Jastrow, in his book Red Giants and White Dwarfs, added: “Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one.”⁠21 The case was, of course, the peppered moth.

    19 Just what happened to the peppered moth? At first, the lighter form of this moth was more common than the darker form. This lighter type blended well into the lighter-colored trunks of trees and so was more protected from birds. But then, because of years of pollution from industrial areas, tree trunks became darkened. Now the moths’ lighter color worked against them, as birds could pick them out faster and eat them. Consequently the darker variety of peppered moth, which is said to be a mutant, survived better because it was difficult for birds to see them against the soot-darkened trees. The darker variety rapidly became the dominant type.

    20. How did an English medical journal explain that the peppered moth was not evolving?

    20 But was the peppered moth evolving into some other type of insect? No, it was still exactly the same peppered moth, merely having a different coloration. Hence, the English medical journal On Call referred to using this example to try to prove evolution as “notorious.” It declared: “This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”⁠22

    22. Does the fact that some insects prove immune to poisons mean that they are evolving?

    22 The same process may also have been the case with some insects being immune to poisons used against them. Either the poisons killed those insects on which they were used, or they were ineffective. Those killed could not develop a resistance, since they were dead. The survival of others could mean that they had been immune at the start. Such immunity is a genetic factor that appears in some insects but not in others. In any event, the insects remained of the same kind. They were not evolving into something else.

    23. What Genesis standard has been confirmed also by mutations?

    23 The message once again confirmed by mutations is the formula of Genesis chapter 1: Living things reproduce only “according to their kinds.” The reason is that the genetic code stops a plant or an animal from moving too far from the average. There can be great variety (as can be seen, for example, among humans, cats or dogs) but not so much that one living thing could change into another. Every experiment ever conducted with mutations proves this. Also proved is the law of biogenesis, that life comes only from preexisting life, and that the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.”

    24. How have breeding experiments shown that living things reproduce only “according to their kinds”?

    24 Breeding experiments also confirm this. Scientists have tried to keep changing various animals and plants indefinitely by crossbreeding. They wanted to see if, in time, they could develop new forms of life. With what result? On Call reports: “Breeders usually find that after a few generations, an optimum is reached beyond which further improvement is impossible, and there has been no new species formed . . . Breeding procedures, therefore, would seem to refute, rather than support evolution.”⁠24 [excerpted Mutations—A Basis for Evolution? Chapter 8, pp. 99-113, Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?]

    Hmmm….:) Flies, moths, tick…ed off?!;)  YEAH, at evolution..ary LIES!…“old” news and (my) old reads…but relevant to now.

    Unmuting mutations…and what do they say?!

    (flies, moths, ticks…still…flies, moths, ticks = Truth)

    the parent organism and its offspring are of the same “kind.””

     

    References/footnotes: Life—How Did It Get Here? By Evolution or by Creation?

    Chapter 5 footnotes:
    27. The New York Times, “Prehistoric Gnat,” October 3, 1982, Section 1, p. 49.
    28. The Globe and Mail, Toronto, “That’s Life,” October 5, 1982, p. 6.

    Chapter 8 footnotes:
    1. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 13, p. 809.

    2. The New Evolutionary Timetable, by Steven M. Stanley, 1981, p. 65.

    3. Chromosomes and Genes, by Peo C. Koller, 1971, p. 127.

    4. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 250.

    5. Cosmos, by Carl Sagan, 1980, p. 27.

    6. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 92.

    7. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.

    8. Cosmos, p. 31.

    9. Chromosomes and Genes, p. 127.

    10. Encyclopædia Britannica, 1959, Vol. 22, p. 989.

    11. The Toronto Star, “Crusade to Unravel Life’s Sweet Mystery,” by Helen Bullock, December 19, 1981, p. A13.

    12. Encyclopedia Americana, 1977, Vol. 10, p. 742.

    13. Processes of Organic Evolution, by G. Ledyard Stebbins, 1971, pp. 24, 25.

    14. The Wellsprings of Life, by Isaac Asimov, 1960, p. 139.

    15. Heredity and the Nature of Man, by Theodosius Dobzhansky, 1964, p. 126.

    16. The World Book Encyclopedia, 1982, Vol. 6, p. 332.

    17. Heredity and the Nature of Man, p. 126.

    18. Scientific American, “Inducible Repair of DNA,” by Paul Howard-Flanders, November 1981, p. 72.

    19. Darwin Retried, by Norman Macbeth, 1971, p. 33.

    20. The International Wildlife Encyclopedia, 1970, Vol. 20, p. 2706.

    21. Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.

    22. On Call, July 3, 1972, p. 9.

    23. Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 5.

    24. On Call, July 3, 1972, pp. 8, 9.

    7/24/18 @ 4:43 p.m.

    Published by:
Make $$$ Selling Ads