MUTATIONS – THE CLAIM THAT THEY CAN ‘CREATE NEW GENETIC INFORMATION’ Recently I was trying to Google a quotation from Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, who was a researcher who worked at the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, in which he said, “Mutations cannot transform an original species (of plant or animal) into an entirely new one. This conclusion agrees with all the experiences and results of mutation research of the 20th century taken together as well as the laws of probability.” And I was especially interested in finding this quote, “properly defined species have real boundaries that cannot be abolished or transgressed by accidental mutations.” (By the way, I had done a post based on this research, and put it up back on September 9, 2012 under the subject “New species by means of mutations: A myth to be busted”, if you wish to check it out) I found those quotes, but at the same time I came across an article in which the author disagreed with Wolf-Ekkehard’s comment. Here is what he offered in the way of proof that Wolf-Ekkehard was wrong: “Lönnig is saying this without any evidence whatsoever – contrary to evidence, actually. The reason why he is saying it is simply that creationists do not want evolution to work because it contradicts the Biblical account of creation. The real lesson to take from the quote above is that the unintelligent processes are actually better at producing new species than humans. Neglecting those processes is not learning, but ignorance.” Here is the link of the article I’m referring to: spartanideas.msu.edu/2013/11/18/life-was-not-created/ As I thought about what he said, I almost had to laugh. Think about it: Evolution is ‘true’ because 99.9 percent of scientists claim it has been proven (I hope you know I’m being sarcastic here, if you’ve read other posts at this page). Here you have a man (I’m referring to Wolf-Ekkehard now) who, along with his colleagues, wanted so badly to use evolution (the scientifically ‘proven’ method of creating new life forms through mutations) to create new plant and animal life forms for their purposes. They spent tons of money and devoted nearly 100 years of 20th century knowledge to applying the scientifically sound method called evolution to “revolutionize the traditional method of breeding plants and animals. They thought that by inducing and selecting favorable mutations, they could produce new and better plants and animals.” But, alas, those scientists could not replicate evolution, to their dismay. The author of the above article says, “The real lesson to take from the quote above is that the unintelligent processes are actually better at producing new species than humans.” Um, wait a minute. Scientists have a ‘scientific method’ that they follow to prove things. If the ‘humans’ haven’t hit upon the specifics necessary to show just how evolution did its trick, and if they therefore were not able to replicate it, then what ‘human’ can definitively say evolution really did the amazing thing that other ‘humans’ are saying it did? In view of that failure, should they not say evolution did not fit the proven scientific method? And if ‘unintelligence’ is smarter than them anyway, why put any credence in what ‘humans’ are saying when even mutations are smarter than them? The author had a problem with Wolf-Ekkhard saying that no matter how hard intelligent and educated scientists tried, they could not make mutations do on purpose what nature did by accident. Actually, let me give you the exact quote he didn’t like: “Consider the implications of the above facts. If highly trained scientists are unable to produce new species by artificially inducing and selecting favorable mutations, is it likely that an unintelligent process would do a better job? If research shows that mutations cannot transform an original species into an entirely new one, then how, exactly, was macroevolution supposed to have taken place?” In answer to that quote, let me repeat what this author said: “Lönnig is saying this without any evidence whatsoever – contrary to evidence, actually. The reason why he is saying it is simply that creationists do not want evolution to work because it contradicts the Biblical account of creation.” First of all, was it the creationists who spent the money and time for nearly 100 years trying to make evolution do its bidding? No, the evolutionary scientists who wholeheartedly believed in evolution were the ones doing it. The author said they had no evidence whatsoever. I would like to know what it was that the scientists were doing for nearly 100 years. If, after all that work and money, they had no evidence whatsoever of why evolution failed them, one of two things must then be true: Either they were woefully deficient in their knowledge of biology for all that time … or the ones today who have the necessary knowledge to qualify them to pass judgment on those scientists as idiots – should be able to prove that Wolf-Ekkehard was wrong about his assessment of evolution - by now successfully creating new species of plants and animals (not just variations of the current ones, but very real new life forms). So far, any time I read of how life was ‘created in the lab’, I find out that the scientist being praised took DNA from a previously existing organism and put into another one to effect some kind of change. Granted, the ability to do that is amazing in itself, so I’m not discrediting their knowledge and ability to manipulate genetic material. It’s just that they DID NOT ‘create’ life, any more than Frankenstein did simply by zapping his monster with electricity. This brings me to another issue. Those reading this will disagree, saying, “Yes, they have made new species of plants and animals - that is what hybrid plants and hybrid animals are.” This leads us to another claim you often hear, and that is, “mutations do indeed create new genetic information”, which is often countered by creationists who then respond “mutations cannot create new genetic information.” There are scientific essays out there that appear to contradict and support both mantras. I came across an article that seems to logically address these issues, showing how mutations can (appear to) create new genetic information, and yet not create new genetic information; make significant changes in existing life forms, and yet not create new and completely different ones. The points in the article provided me with some insight about something that intrigued me some time ago, though no one else seems awed by it for some reason, and that is the matter of instinct. Sure, DNA codes can code for physical characteristics such as color, size, shape, etc. But how is it that an animal that is not raised by a parent (for example, a kitten not having a mother cat to teach it ‘cat’ things), at some point seems to pick up on the things that particular animal is known for. A kitten that had no parent, for example, will still instinctively use a litter box when no other animal might do so; it may chase and ‘attack’ smaller creatures even though it didn’t have a parent to show it how to kill prey; it may react to its human owners in ways that show that it is a cat and not a dog, and so on (maybe not to the degree that a kitten with a mother would do those things, but there is still a trace of instinct within them, nevertheless). I know there are exceptions, so don’t be putting up videos and articles about how some cats act like a dog, or a dog does some things a cat might do. I’m referring to the generality of this subject, and the fact that a single DNA strand at the beginning of the life cycle of an animal can contain information regarding what the instinct of the animal should be … that differentiates it from other animals … and yet you might not be able to find the ‘gene’ that does it. That information must be locked up inside the multidimensional nature of genes, as the article suggests. One example of what I mean is this comment in the article (one of many similar types of comments): “There could be a considerable amount of information stored in the genome in compressed, hidden form. When this information is decompressed, deciphered, revealed, or unscrambled (call it what you will), this cannot be used as evidence for evolution, since the information was already stored in the genome.” Or how about the characteristics in man that differentiate us from animals. Why do animals not put on concerts, or walk through art museums, or experiment with gourmet foods, or go to college, or indulge their imagination? Granted, some animals show a small degree of those characteristics (like the elephant that can actually paint a picture of an elephant on canvas), but man exhibits those characteristics to a far greater degree, and it sets us apart from animals. So how much ‘hidden information’ in the DNA code is responsible for what appears to be ‘increased information’ used as examples in the many evolutionary sites claiming mutations can increase genetic information? I’m inclined to think that what most evolutionists claim as evolution by mutations is really a case of mistaken identity. If you are willing to look at the logical argument for these issues and come up with your own opinion even though it comes from the creation site, I think you’ll find it quite interesting and thought provoking. It is a long article, too much to copy and paste here, so I will provide the link that brings you to it. I hope it helps you come to a more balanced view of this whole subject of what exactly it is that mutations can do, and cannot do. Here is the link: creation/mutations-new-information
Posted on: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 22:36:29 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015