How darwin was wrong on Natural selection and genetic mutations
Darwin theory of slow evolution has probably distorted our mind to believe that our ancestors were brutal cave living apes with small brains. This lateral view has caused archaeologists and anthropologists to ignore the evidences of highly advanced civilization and intelligent humans with highly advanced machinery millions of year ago. In previous article, I tried to prove Darwin theory of evolution incorrect in general. In this article, we will try to refute the false claims of Darwin theory of genetic mutations and Natural selection
What Darwin meant by "Natural selection" or " genetic mutation"
Evolution of man from an animal is a very old theory, but Darwin added something new called "natural selection" to this pre-existing theory. "Natural selection" means the functional ability of our body system to accrue beneficial genetic mutation and pass it to our upcoming generations. This means that if a member of an aquatic species adapts to land environment, it will pass this capability of adapting to land environment to all their offspring’s. When this happens, the inferior species will eventually die out and what will be left is the adaptive superior member of the species. Thus "natural selection" talks about the survival of the best. Though it is scientifically proven that the traits of an offspring are inherited from his mating parents, it is scientifically not proven that accumulation of such superior traits over few generations can result in a completely new species.
Darwin evolution
However Darwin theory maintains that such random genetic mutations in an organism genetic code led to the evolution of the simplest of organisms to more complex organisms. Over the period of time, as the beneficial mutations were accumulated and passed onto the next generation, the result was a totally new creature yet the variation of the original species.
How Darwinist lied about slow gradual process of evolution
Darwin laid the argument that "There are many complex living beings with many complex organs, each organ dependent on some other organ. Such living beings with complex organs must have been possibly formed by accumulation of several successive genetic modifications in a relatively simple living being."
Archeologists and scientists of all countries have been digging the earth for the last 150+ years in search of a single uninterrupted sequence of fossils that can demonstrate evolution of one species from another inferior species. When they didn’t find any evidences, they linked the isolated fossils of the same species but of different ages to claim that they are inter-related and one is the superior species of the other. To counter-attack this argument, Darwinists came up with a theory of very slow gradual process of evolution. According to them, "natural selection never takes a big leap; instead proceed in small steps, taking small amount of genetic mutations in each successive offspring”.
Why Darwinist claims of slow process of evolution is false
According to them, it takes thousands of generation to form a new species. Since no scientists would be alive to test thousands generation of monkey species, slow gradual process of evolution cannot be proved by scientific experiments. A very nice excuse, Isn’t it? Why only monkeys need to be tested to prove evolution? Why don’t they perform experiments on bacteria? A new generation of bacteria is formed every 10-15 minutes, few hours max. Different types of bacteria are born in different environmental conditions. Bacteria is found almost everywhere in the world, be it water, ice, desert, tropical, rainforest, dry/wet/toxic regions etc. I am damn sure that to study evolution, evolutionists must have tested bacteria in all kinds of environmental conditions. Since thousands generation of bacteria would be born within a year, much extensive evolutionary research on bacteria and many other similar organisms like worms, flies may have been already done. They may have projected bacteria, worm, flies to different environmental conditions, genetic mutations, toxic chemicals etc. But did we ever hear about bacteria/worms/flies etc changing to something else. Bacteria still remains bacteria. Worms are still worms, Flies are still flies. Bacteria/worms/flies that were exposed to toxic chemicals and genetic mutation either died out or remained neutral. Isn’t this the sufficient proof that there is no evolution of species?
Darwin was wrong in genetic mutations
Due to the continuous advancement in molecular biology and genetics over the last few decades, theory of evolution is slowly being put into the dustbin. Molecular biology says about the extremely complex system in even a single cellular living being. Even the tiniest bacteria have a highly complex system that would require thousands of machinery to design it mechanically.
This is some serious complex shit. What? This is internal working of bacteria??????
Bacteria body system is far complex than the largest ever machinery made on earth. This clearly indicates intelligent design and not evolution.
How scientist refutes Darwin theory of genetic mutation?
While the evolutionist and archeologist were pondering on gradual evolution through natural selection over the long time-span of millions of years, serious objections were raised by biologists and molecular scientists on the steady accumulation of gene mutations.
1) Molecular biologist Michael Denton wrote, "Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 grams, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machinery built by man and absolutely without parallel in the non-living world."
2) Another molecular biologist, Jonathan C. Well said, "First of all, I love science. I think that the way that Darwinism corrupts the evidence, distorts the evidence, is bad for science."
3) Reacting to the laughable logic of random mutation, renowned scientist, David Wilcock, said ”Probabilities that DNA could evolve by 'random mutation' are so minute as to be utterly laughable-akin to the idea that if you have enough monkeys tapping away on typewriters, one of them will eventually produce a complete masterpiece Shakespearean play”
4) Fred Hoyle, who claimed that multiple copies of genes are homogeneous within species, but heterogeneous between species and hence, such copies could not have been formed by random mutations acting on a common ancestor, said “Two thousand different and very complex enzymes are required for a living organism to exist. And random shuffling processes could not form a single one of these even in 20 billion years.”
<>
Darwinists Claims that chimp DNA matches with Humans DNA is false
Believers of evolution assert that if two species have similar lookup, they must have originated from a common ancestor. Thus, they deduced that since chimpanzees and guerrilla DNA’s matches 95% to that of humans, they share a common ancestor. It is very common to hear such absurd statements from politicians or religious fanatics but such a view from scientists is quite surprising.
Below concept is taken from an episode I saw on discovery channel
Our DNA matches with ants too
With technological advancement in molecular biology, we now know that the DNA of an organism holds all the vital information about the features and development of an organism. Since all of living beings (only animals) have same features like eyes, ears, nose etc, they are bound to have many similarities in DNA.
Similarities in facial structure of human and monkey
Since the lookup of chimps is very similar to humans, their DNA match with humans is very high.But why only chimps, DNA of human are comparable to even ants. Since we can perform all the activities that ants can perform, we have the similarities between our DNA and ants DNA.
<>
95% Chimps DNA match with humans DNA is wrong
Now you may say human DNA matches 95%-98% to that of chimps DNA. If you think so, then let me inform that there is no technology or experiment that can reveal the exact DNA match in percentage terms. DNA has all the information in a complex compound made by the combinative sequences of four chemicals known as nucleotides, abbreviated shortly as C,G,A,T. To compare DNA, group of three such sequences are fed in a complex machine to find out the similarities in the sequences of 20 different types of amino acids. HUMAN DNA has more than 3,000,000,000 nucleotides and comparing these nucleotides will take years of processing and computing power. As you may have seen in discovery channel, this 95%-98% figure is obtained from the fairly primitive process called as DNA hybridization.
<>
In this technique, a part of human DNA is taken randomly and separated into single strands by heating. These Single strands are then allowed to merge with single strands of chimp DNA. If it merges, it indicates similarity.
But then there are various reasons on why single strands of different species do not merge with each other, one of which is homology (Similarity). So non-merging of strands does not indicate that it was due to dissimilarities. Also, no scientists have compared each strands of human DNA with each strand of chimps DNA. So these DNA match in percentage term is very crude and hence, makes DNA hybridization not a foolproof technique to indicate similarities of species. This magic figure of 95-98% was widely propagated to fool the public to believe in theory of evolution.
95% chimps DNA with humans means nothing
Even if the human DNA matches with chimps DNA 95%, it proves nothing. Since they are the creations of the same creator, they should definitely have such similarities. It does not prove that we evolved from chimpanzees. Our DNA has more than 3 billion base pairs. So, 5% mismatch calculates to mismatch of
150 million base pairs. Changes in 150 millions base pairs due to mutations and environmental changes is a very naive thinking according to me
Simplest example to prove the comparative DNA theory wrong
Still finding it hard to believe, Ok, Let me make it very easy to you. Compare the following two statements.
Sarin is a very good writer. He wrote many fascinating articles.
Sarin is a very bad writer. He wrote many disgusting articles
How much similar are the above two statements. 90%-95%. As you see above, Similarity in statements doesn’t matters as it contradicts each other. Similarly, uniformity in DNA doesn’t necessarily mean one is descendant of the other
New species by Genetic mutations is scientifically not possible
Darwin theory on genetic mutations states that change in genes and chromosomes due to changing environmental conditions, influence the formation of new species.
Though it sounds nice, it is highly impossible that the genetic mutation would change the number of chromosomes and genes of a living entity. Also the DNA structure should change to form a new species. Even if we assume it happens, it is highly improbable that this genetic mutations would happen on opposite sex members of the same species at the same time so that they can mate to reproduce the new species.
<>
Practical example that proves genetic mutations wrong
To understand this scenario, let us consider an extremely good example on genetic mutation. To comprehend this example, please note the following points on the transfer of genetic mutations between generations of the same species.
1. Mutations must be positive and shouldn’t curb the organism capability to reproduce and pass it to the next generation.
2. At a time, only two genetic mutations are possible a single species. Third genetic mutation has been proven to be always fatal.
3. Mutation has always been harmful or neutral to the organism. Only 1% of the mutations have been proven beneficial.
4. Mutations must change chromosomal count and add that information to the genes/DNA of the organism.
<>
Let us start with an example. Suppose a species S living in an environment E undergoes genetic mutations to adapt to a new environment E1. Let us name this newly adapted species as S1. One or two genetic mutations would not change the genetic code of the species. You would need hundreds of mutations plus the changes in chromosomes to create a new species.
Chromosomal changes may not be inherited by generative species
Each species has a set of chromosomes that do not change. Even if some environmental factors influence the change in chromosome in any member of the species, the same is rarely inherited by his/her offspring. For Instance, if any member of species develops an extra chromosome or loses a chromosome due to deformity/accident, then it would either lose it capability to reproduce or perhaps, not be able to pass that deformity to the next generation.
Genetic mutations kill or bring harm to the species
Genetic mutation simply kills the offspring because the enzymes present in our body tries to correct the irregularities caused by such genetic mutations. There is a special enzyme called DNA polymerase that guards our genetic information by synthesizing strands and DNA repairs.
Mutations results in deformed bodies like an extra useless finger/hands/legs, twisted ankles/cell etc. This also means that nature opposes mutations. Therefore, there is a very slight possibility that any living being survives to genetic mutations especially when we are talking about hundreds of mutations.
<>
Even if there is such a possibility, for news species to form, exactly the same amount of genetics changes by same amount of mutations should occur on opposite sex members of the same species.
Let us give Darwinists one more chance
But to support theory of evolution, let us temporarily believe in this ludicrous theory of species S genetically changing to species S1. In this case, we have to consider the point that genetic mutations may not bring the same adaptive change in all members of the same species. So, there is a larger possibility that all friends and relatives of his ancestor species S either dies out or is genetically changed to some other species S2, S3, S4(practically almost impossible) etc. Hence species S1 is all alone and since he has no one to mate, this species should eventually die out.
Let’s give evolutionists a third chance
But to again validate the theory of evolution, let us consider this impossible case of two opposite members of the same species S undergoing genetic mutation at the same time to form new species S1. They might copulate and have kids. There is one more issue here. As we all know, breeding within close/nearby relatives leads to several genetic defects thus resulting in unhealthy offspring. Inbreeding is slowly getting banned everywhere. Below map shows the ban on cousin marriages in various states of America
Enough is enough, Darwinist are definitely wrong
So, how the hell did such genetically mutated species survive such genetic defects?
All of this does not make any sense to me but again let us assume this impossible case as true. Now suppose the environment E1 changes again to E2. This new species S1 must now again undergo genetic mutations to adapt to the new environment E2. But like I said before, possibility of survival in genetic mutations is very low.
So in the case of genetic mutations, since the chances of survival even for one generation of species is very minuscule, theory of evolution which states genetic mutations in millions of species, is a practically impossible concept and an absolute absurd theory to believe in. Hence, theory of Mutation that is independent of any environmental changes is not the answer to evolution or adaptation of species. Believing in genetic mutations is like saying “Pouring water on electronic devices prolongs its performance and life.”
Conclusion:
After reading this article, you must have realized that Darwin theory of natural transformation is naive as such an event has never been observed nor there is any logical possibility of drastic physical changes in body because of environmental changes and genetic mutations.
Note: Images used on this website
are either a production of Bhaktivedanta Book Trust(https://www.krishna.com), Iskcon
Foundation or were found in google search under "Free to use and share". If any
of the images presented here violates copyright issues or infringes anyone copyright
or are not under "Fair use", then please bring it to our notice. Read
Disclaimer for more.
Share this to your friends. One of your friend is
waiting for your share.
Related Articles
Why Hindus offer food to god
How to change body forms by chanting AUM or mantra
Effects of chanting AUM or mantras
Science in hinduism-Embryology in Garbhopanishad and Charaka samhita
Should software professionals practice spirituality
Science in hinduism-Embryology in Bhagavad purana
Bhagavad gita quote against caste system
Why lord Krishna is shown with a flute in his hand
Visit to isckon temple
How chanting AUM or mantra changes your DNA
Post Comment