July 18, 2007 by mr_flood.

From Uncommon Descent

As mentioned in the introduction, a majority of current evolutionists believe in neo-Darwinism. In one of the most popular textbooks on evolution, Futuyma (ref. 20, p. 10) states that evolutionary change is a population process in which one genotype replaces other ones, and for this process to occur, mutation is quite ineffective because of its low rate of occurrence, whereas even the slightest intensity of natural selection can bring about substantial change in a realistic amount of time. He also states ‘‘Natural selection can account for both slight and great differences among species, and adaptations are traits that have been shaped by natural selection.’’ Although this type of statement is quite common in the evolutionary literature, it is obvious that any advantageous genotype is produced by mutation including all kinds of genetic changes. Natural selection occurs as a consequence of mutational production of different genotypes, and therefore it is not the fundamental cause of evolution.

Please read the whole thing.

Posted in ID | 1 Comment »

March 6, 2007 by mr_flood.

I don’t understand how anyone could doubt evolution, look at this for example:

“The genetic code is the mapping of 64 three-letter codons to 20 amino-acids and a stop signal.” It stands out among possible competing codes in several ways. “First, the assignment of amino acids to codons appears to be optimal for minimizing the effect of translational misread errors.” Errors in misreading a codon tend to have minimal effects on the translated protein. “Second, amino acids with simple chemical structure tend to have more codons assigned to them”, as “they are required more often in protein assembly”. But the researchers main interest in the paper below was the ability of the genetic code to carry parallel messages. The list is already impressive (and there is no reason why it should not be extended with research) - binding sequences of regulatory proteins that bind within coding regions, splicing signals that include specific 6-8 bp sequences within coding regions and mRNA secondary structure signals - all higher-order codes that ride over the protein forming code. “They found that the real genetic code could accommodate more arbitrary motifs in coding sequence than almost any of the other possibilities - it has a higher information content. One reason for the real genetic code’s superiority is the fact that its stop codons, when frame-shifted, tend to form common codons, whereas in other codes frame-shifted stop codons form rarer codons or even other stop codons.”

There’s just no way anyone, God included, coulda thought this stuff up. The only way this complexity could have come about is through random mutations.

Posted in ID | 1 Comment »

February 22, 2007 by mr_flood.

From Uncommon Descent:

The major claims of evolution are the creation of novel cell types, tissue types, organs, and body plans. These are required to get from bacteria to baboons. No evolution of these by any means has been observed. They simply appear fully formed in the fossil record and can be observed fully formed in living things today. Given the definition of a theory as a well tested explanation there is no theory of evolution but rather only hypotheses of evolution. Until a hypothetical mechanism is observed doing that which it is claimed it can do these mechanisms remain hypothetical. Honest scientists admit this. For example:

“The history of organic life is undemonstrable; we cannot prove a whole lot in evolutionary biology, and our findings will always be hypothesis. There is one true evolutionary history of life, and whether we will actually ever know it is not likely. Most importantly, we have to think about questioning underlying assumptions, whether we are dealing with molecules or anything else.” Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Professor of Biological Anthropology, University of Pittsburgh, February 9, 2007, Source

Brevity is the essence of wit.

Posted in ID | 1 Comment »