Evidence Disproving Evolution

You forgot to use your disapearing font. Fool! This lapse will go into your personnel file at Darwin Central.

Don't forget to drink your Ovaltine.

Insults are an easy way to avoid addressing the substance of my post.

There was no substance to your post. You just keep repeating that in someone's opinion.... I know that you cannot discuss the science so you must always appeal to authority or insult. Let's see scientific facts contradicting my statements. Let's see the non-existent results of Hartwell's experiments which supposedly will prove his discoveries favor evolution. If you cannot discuss facts you are not discussing the issue.

What color is the seventh planet? (Hint: think of someone's favorite font color.)

Seventh planet.

Is that where Blue Meanies [ugly cartoon villains of Yellow Submarine] come from?

You forgot to use your disapearing font. Fool! This lapse will go into your personnel file at Darwin Central.

"Cold busted," yet again.

;-)

There was no substance to your post. You just keep repeating that in someone's opinion.... Let's see scientific facts contradicting my statements.

Nobel lectures are reports of fact. That you choose not to read them is not my problem.

I know that you cannot discuss the science so you must always appeal to authority or insult.

You mean like The Beak of the Finch? Or like how all discoveries by Nobel Prize-winning biologists (opens in a new window) disprove evolution? Or you mean insults like this:

743 posted on 10/18/02 11:36 AM Eastern by gore3000

"Cold busted," yet again.

It wasn't my fault! That dratted black helicopter distracted me again!

What color is the seventh planet?

Another insult from the degenerate thug of evolution Patrick Henry. What else is new? What's the last time you posted something that was not an insult? You spend your life insulting people that disagree with you. You spend your life trying to prove a lie - a lie you can only support by attacking those who tell the truth. You are living a lie and you know it. What an empty life you have that you can only make yourself feel good by trying to hurt others. I should pity you, but I do not because people like you are evil and they hurt other people with their lies.

Is that where Blue Meanies

Of course Patrick's #1 toad has to join in the insult parade.

Of course Patrick's #1 toad has to join in the insult parade.

Dude... you have some irony on your chin...

The Beak of the Finch?

Yup, it shows that the Darwin finches do indeed reproduce with each other and have even more viable offspring than when they reproduce with the same 'species'. It also shows that the beaks go back and forth with the weather and are thus adaptations and not mutations as the evolutionists have been saying for decades. None of the garbage which you have posted can deny that. As to the lectures - the discoveries speak for themselves and neither you nor your lame friends has been able to show in any way that those discoveries favor evolution. In fact Hartwell is trying to show how his discovery could possibly be due to evolution and Baltimore says that no one will be able to show this to have come about through evolution in half a century - if that is not a left-handed recommendation then nothing is. Since you keep repeating the lie that my quotes are false, I shall continue to repeat the truth which I have already given:

Gore's own authorities have made statements,

First of all what I have been pointing out supporting my position is their discoveries, not their positions. As I have pointed out (and these threads are a wonderful proof of it) many scientists are afraid of the thugs of evolution - just look at the links in the article to see why. So I consider their contrary opinions totally irrelevant (unless supported by facts) when the evidence itself is overwhenlmingly against evolution. That is the case in both these discoveries as I have pointed out several times already. Here are the unedited posts I have already replied to on this subject:

Seems that David Baltimore, while throwing that little bit about evolution at the end, realizes the utter complexity of DNA and not only compares it to a computer program, but thinks even that such a metaphor is way too reductionist to give it justice. As he admits, it is far too complex for us to understand it now or for many decades to come. Such complexity cannot arise by chance. Programs, even the simpler ones we use in our computers, do not arise by chance. More importantly, they cannot be modified by chance either which is what evolution requires. Here's the whole article which shows the interpretation that this is the work of evolution is totally wrong. Such a complex, decision making system, was clearly intelligently designed.

DNA is a reality beyond metaphor

David Baltimore

The drumbeats get louder as we approach the day when the first draft of the entire structure of the human genome is to be announced. Pundits appear on television shows, trying to tell the public what this means. Many are my good friends. But I must tell their dirty little secret.

They are not telling the whole story. They have all decided that the real meaning of this achievement is so wrapped up in technical detail that the only way to convey the truth is through metaphor. So they tell the world that the genome is like a book, with words, sentences and chapters. Or they say that it is the periodic table for biologists, assuming that laypeople will have heard of this key organizing principle of chemistry. But these and other metaphoric links miss the real story. The genome is like no other object that science has elucidated. No mere tool devised by humans has the complexity of representation found in the genome.

So let me try the harder, but richer and more honest, approach. Let me try to explain what the genome really is. To do that, I need to start at the chemical level and then take on the more complex notion of coding. Structurally, the genome is just a huge string of chemical units broken up quite arbitrarily into anywhere from 3 to a few hundred individual packages, the chromosomes. This one-dimensional string of linked chemical units is abbreviated, DNA, and we need not worry about its detailed architecture. We can also ignore the packaging and treat DNA as one long string of 3 billion units. When we say that the genome has been sequenced, we mean that we know the chemical composition of each of the units as they occur in the sequence. Actually, at each of the 3 billion positions along the string there can be only one of four chemical units, abbreviated as A, T, C and G. So the genome is a string of these four units in some particular sequence that goes on for 3 billion letters. The closest analogy is to a computer code which is a gigantic string with only 2 letters at each position.

Why not then be satisfied with this computer code metaphor? Mainly because the meaning of a computer code is not common knowledge so the metaphor conveys very little to many people. But also because the metaphor does not communicate the richness of coding systems buried in the seemingly monotonous string of letters.

Coding implies a method of transforming the coded information into some useful form. The computer in front of me now is doing this so effectively that I never see the code. Similarly, the cells of the body can decode DNA so effectively that until the 1950?s no one knew that there were codes controlling living systems. The remarkable thing about the DNA code is that it is decoded in multiple ways, all interdigitated with each other in the string of letters in DNA. The most discussed are coding regions that specify the sequence of proteins. Proteins are the actual machines that do the work of the body. The protein-coding regions are all that is captured by most metaphors for DNA. DNA as a book implies that all DNA has are letters that transform into words, the meaningful units of language, and that words are like proteins. But the regions of human DNA that encode proteins are only a few percent of the 3 billion-long string of letters. Most of it does other things. What are these other things?

The DNA code can specify the sites and nature of many different events. While we don?t know them all, there are easily 10?s of others aside from the sequence of proteins. For instance, DNA does not encode proteins directly, it uses an intermediary chemical string called RNA. Each RNA encodes one protein so an RNA is a form of packaging of the DNA string into meaningful, bite size pieces. But then the DNA must have a code for where to start an RNA, and where to end an RNA. The RNA is not used as a direct copy of DNA but rather is processed by destroying parts of it, modifying other parts and putting special structures at each end. There is code for each of these events.

What reads these codes for processing RNA? Protein machines do it?they interpret the coded sequence and follow its instructions. Each modifying machine carries its own decoders. In some cases they even carry very specific pieces of RNA because the code is most easily read by another RNA. There are from a few to many tens of processing codes associated with each gene in the genome.

But that is only the beginning of the story. Another whole family of decoders determine which RNA is made in which cell of the body and at what amount. This is probably the most important code of all because it is what specifies the individual functions of the cells of the body. The red cells of our blood carry oxygen to our tissues because the gene for the oxygen carrier, hemoglobin, is copied into a huge amount of RNA in developing red cells. But it is copied in no other cell because no other cell needs that protein. Thus, there is machinery in a red blood cell and only there that can read the code surrounding the hemoglobin gene. There are some 50,000 genes in the genome and that story can be told for each one. Some make RNA in all the cells of the body because they are "housekeeping genes". Others are found in some types of cells but not others. The brain has probably hundreds of different cell types and each must differ from the others by the pattern of RNA?s found in the cell.

We call the code for determining which genes make which RNAs in which cells, the regulatory information in the DNA. There is lots of it but it is hard to recognize and it is a particular challenge to those trying to read the codes in DNA to decipher the regulatory information.

Then there are many other codes in our DNA. The number of cells in the body increases when we grow by one cell dividing into two. When such cell division occurs, it is crucial that each cell get a full complement of the DNA instructions. So the DNA needs code to specify its own partition among the daughter cells. Also, the DNA must duplicate itself. DNA is a double helix that separates into its two constituent parts when it duplicates. A big protein machine carries out that process and responds to coded information in the DNA itself.

Basically, DNA directs everything that happens in the cell and does it with a daunting variety of interdigitated coded information. The sequence of the genome lays bare all of that but only the continuing efforts of the thousands of scientists trying to decipher the individual codes will bring out the full richness of information hidden away in the string of units provided by the sequencers. And, to make it all much harder, the meaningful coded information is tucked away in a sea of parasitic DNA. Just as plants and animals are infested with parasites, so is DNA. The parasites are DNA themselves that can duplicate itself and insert throughout the DNA. They, and other forms of DNA that are thought to be accidental junk, form the vast majority of our genome. We would love to ignore it all but often it is hard to tell important DNA from junk and there is always the suspicion that we may have underestimated the importance of what we call junk.

Modern biology is a science of information. The sequencing of the genome is a landmark of progress in specifying the information, decoding it into its many coded meanings and learning how it goes wrong in disease. While it is a moment worthy of the attention of every human, we should not mistake progress for a solution. There is yet much hard work to be done?even the genome we have today is a first draft that needs elaboration. It will be the work of at least the next half-century to fully comprehend the magnificence of the DNA edifice build over 4 billion years of evolution and held in the nucleus of each cell of the body of each organism on earth.
659 posted on 10/17/02 10:34 AM Pacific by gore3000

I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said. I supported my position, Dr. Baltimore did not support his view of how the discovery backs up evolution. The whole extent of the evidence is against evolution and Dr. Baltimore did not say anywhere how his discovery proved evolution. In fact both he and Hartwell said that they had to see how it might be possible to show that their discoveries were in accordance with evolution, nowhere did they say that they had proof that they were explainable by evolution.
715 posted on 10/17/02 8:19 PM Pacific by gore3000

To Junior
Exactly what I said. Right now it is an ASSUMPTION . When he finds proof for that assumption, get back to me. He will not. The scientific facts both these scientists under discussion discovered show the impossibility of evolution.
726 posted on 10/18/02 5:39 AM Pacific by gore3000

Yup, Baltimore himself stated that his comment about his discovery "It will be the work of at least the next half-century to fully comprehend the magnificence of the DNA edifice build over 4 billion years of evolution." In other words he cannot back up his assumption that this is explainable by evolution and he does not even think that it can be shown in his lifetime.

Hartwell again shows that his claim is an assumption and that he is going to try to find the answer to how possibly such a thing could have arisen through evolution "My laboratory is beginning a new research program aimed at studying how molecular circuits support evolution." In other words he has no proof of his assumption either.

Therefore the only valid scientific explanation at this time, the only one supported by science is that DNA was intelligently designed and evolutionists have absolutely no evidence supporting the evolutionary development of such systems. In fact, developmental biologists call the process by which the human organism develops from conception to birth a program. Programs cannot be constructed or altered at random as evolution claims it works.

So yes, my statement is correct and neither you nor any of your friends can disprove any of the evidence or any of the interpretations I have given for that evidence. Neither you nor any evolutionist has or can give evidence showing that any of these systems could have arisen in an evolutionary manner. I have given evidence how according to Darwin's own test for the truth of evolutionary theory, these systems could not have arisen in an evolutionary way. So laugh all you like, you are just a buffoon who cannot even discuss the facts and must try to discredit them by attacking the messenger.
741 posted on 10/18/02 8:31 AM Pacific by gore3000
817 posted on 10/18/02 5:16 PM Pacific by gore3000

I know better what his discovery proves than what Dr. Baltimore said.

You lie! *I* am Napoleon!

Or you mean insults like this:

And the insult was highly deserved by Junior who posted a totally despicable slime at me. Yes, I fight back. I will not stand idle while all you evolutionists do is try to assassinate my character and disrupt the discussion.

And the insult was highly deserved by Junior who posted a totally despicable slime at me.

Really? Let's review.

Junior makes two compatible and non-contradictory statements (stipulated in post 490).

Bones are strong evidence that evolution has occured.
473 posted on 10/14/02 4:39 PM Pacific by Junior

You deliberately misquote him and lie about his position in 498.

Now a 'clue' is 'absolute proof'? What a strange dictionary you evolutionists use.

You lie about Junior's position in post 714:

Junior is going back and forth saying on one post that science proves nothing and on the next that evolution is fact. If science proves nothing then evolution cannot be a fact. He is talking out of both sides of his mouth and you are dishonestly trying to cover up for him.

My initial question at post 731:

One of these things is not like the other. How is this not blatant dishonesty?

Junior's response to me at 733:

It's called "lying for God." g3k gets special dispensation for breaking a commandment because he's doing it "in a good cause." It's a bit like the Clintons running roughshod over individual rights "for the children."

You pitch a substantial hissy fit in 743 (reproduced elsewhere), hoping to elicit an emotional reaction and thereby change the subject.

The lurkers can decide for themselves whether or not Junior's remarks are an accurate characterization or "totally despicable slime." This is not the first time you have frothed and foamed at the mouth when your position becomes untenable, hoping to draw attention away from the many weaknesses in your own arguments and deceptions.

Which reminds me, you have yet to address my question in post 584 (which refers, of course, to the completely factual information I provided in post 576).

I'd offer you some more rope, but I see you've brought your own.

Wonder if its blue rope? :-)

Did someone say blue?

Hey slimer, Junior got himself into trouble and came out of it by insults. He got what he deserved. You are trying to turn this thread into a personal attack on me because I have dared give evidence against your moronic atheistic theory of evolution proposed by the charlatan Darwin. The proof against it is right in the article which none of you "geniuses" dare to discuss because you all know that EVOLUTION IS A LIE and I have proven it in the article.

Hey slimer,

Slimer and thugs?

Why the personal attacks?

Intelligent Design:
Darwin's Mistake by Stu Pullen -- Rebuttals of Criticisms of Darwin's Black Box -- Dembski - Another Way to Detect Design -- Behe, Michael J. - ARN Authors Page -- Leadership U. Designer Universe: Intelligent Design Theory of Origins -- Flagellar Structure and regulated transcription of flagellar genes -- Dr. Lee Spetner's continued exchange with Dr. Edward E. Max -- Intelligent Design Research Community -- Intelligent Design Theory Resources -- Intelligent Design. The bridge between science and theology. (William Dembski). -- Evolution vs Creation (Intelligent Design) WorldView -- Detailed defense of "Icons" by Wells -- Dembski on Intelligent Design -- Dembski: No Free Lunch -- Behe's Book -- A True Acid Test:Response to Ken Miller : Behe, Michael -- Intelligent Design Articles -- Phillip Johnson's Page -- Ohio Science Standards - IDN	A Moment in History... That a maker is required for anything that is made is a lesson Sir Isaac Newton was able to teach forcefully to an atheist-scientist friend of his. Sir Isaac had an accomplished artisan fashion for him a small scale model of our solar system which was to be put in a room in Newton?s home when completed. The assignment was finished and installed on a large table. The workman had done a very commendable job, simulating not only the various sizes of the planets and their relative proximities, but also so constructing the model that everything rotated and orbited when a crank was turned. It was an interesting, even fascinating work, as you can image, particularly to anyone schooled in the sciences. Newton's atheist-scientist friend came by for a visit. Seeing the model, he was naturally intrigued, and proceeded to examine it with undisguised admiration for the high quality of the workmanship. "My! What an exquisite thing this is!? he exclaimed. "Who made it?? Paying little attention to him, Sir Isaac answered, "Nobody." Stopping his inspection, the visitor turned and said: "Evidently you did not understand my question. I asked who made this. Newton, enjoying himself immensely no doubt, replied in a still more serious tone. "Nobody. What you see just happened to assume the form it now has." "You must think I am a fool!? the visitor retorted heatedly, "Of course somebody made it, and he is a genius, and I would like to know who he is." Newton then spoke to his friend in a polite yet firm way: "This thing is but a puny imitation of a much grander system whose laws you know, and I am not able to convince you that this mere toy is without a designer and maker; yet you profess to believe that the great original from which the design is taken has come into being without either designer or maker! Now tell me by what sort of reasoning do you reach such an incongruous conclusion?" From: Sir Isaac Newton Solar System Story, "The Truth: God or evolution?" by Marshall and Sandra Hall

Biology Disproving Evolution
Alternative Splicing -- Scientists snap first 3-D pictures of the "heart" of the transcription machine -- Molecular Biology Book -- Cell Interactions in Development -- Oldest Living Plant -- Fruit Flies Speak Up -- The Nature of Nurture: How the environment shapes our genes -- Nanobes (Nanobacteria) are crystals -- Regulation of the Cell Cycle 2001 Nobel Prize -- Amniota - Problems with the Philogeny of -- Basic Principles of Genetics Mendel's Genetics -- Photosynthesis -- Population Variability and Evolutionary Genetics -- Fossil Hominids mitochondrial DNA -- Genetics Glossary AB -- Genomics and Its Impact on Medicine and Society 2001 Primer -- The molecular clock -- Cell Signaling: The Inside Story on MAP Kinases -- Protein Synthesis -- Watching genes at work -- Cell snapshot spots cancer -- Development protein atracts and then repels muscle tissue -- Evolution of the Genomes of Mammals and Birds -- Gene Silencing - Study shows plants inherit traits from more than gene sequence alone -- Gene silencing - Environmental Stress reactions -- Bio-Tech Info - Gene Silencing Articles -- Advances In "Micro" RNA Exploring Process Of Life -- Monkeys and Men - gene expression -- Chimps, Humans and Retroviruses -- Gene activity in human brain sets us apart from chimps -- Pros and Cons of Inbreeding -- Inbreeding and desth of species -No Need to Isolate Genetics -- How Organisms Protect Themselves Against Transposons -- Uses of transposons -- Cell Suicide -- Protein Transforms Sedentary Muscles Into Exercised Muscles, Researchers Report -- Gene insertion in Transgenic Animals -- "50,000 Genes, and We Know Them All (Almost)"	While evolution continues to tell us that species transform themselves in a simple almost magical manner, modern biology shows this not to be the case. Organisms are so complex that for them to transform themselves into different ones would require a theory of COevolution. The random processes assumed by evolutionary theory deny such a possibility. Genes are just information encoded along a long string of the chemical DNA; they cannot do anything themselves. David Baltimore, Nobel Prize Winner

Mutations:
A Scientific Defense of a Creationist Position on Evolution -- Evolutionist View of Evolutionary Biology -- Creation, Selection, And Variation -- Population Genetics, Haldane's Dilemma and the Neutral Theory of Evolution -- Haldane Rebuttal -- Point_Mutations -- Inbreeding and Population Genetics -- Introduction to Evolutionary Biology -- Neutral Mutations -- Computational Geneticists Revisit A Mystery In Evolution -- Mutations - organisms fixes them itself -- Mutations	Funny thing about mutations, it is almost impossible for them to spread throughout a species. In addition, mutations which either transform a species into another or which add any kind of greater complexity have not been seen in spite of the daily experimentation going on in thousands of research labs daily.

Junk DNA:
The Human Genome Project -- Junk DNA in man and mouse -- Junk DNA - Over 95 percent of DNA has largely unknown function -- JUNK dna and transpositions -- Junk DNA Tips Off Tumor Comeback -- Transgenics, Junk DNA, Evolution and Risks: Reading Through Rows	Evolutionists are always making assumptions. They assumed that the tonsils and the appendix were remnants of previous species from which humans had evolved and were totally useless. They were wrong about that. When the human genome was sequenced and it was found that only 5% of it was used in genes they immediately assumed that the 95% not in genes was 'junk'. They were wrong again of course. The now called 'non-coding' DNA is the source of what makes humans tick and a marvel of creation in itself.

Abiogenesis:
RNA World: A Critique -- Evolution and the Origin of Life -- Thermodynamics and the Origin of Life - Part II -- The Mystery of Life's Origin -- Message Theory/Remine -- Bruce Lipton, Insight Into Cellular Consciousness	There is a tremendous amount of proof against abiogenesis. First of all is Pasteur's proof that life does not come from inert matter (and this was of course at one time the prediction of materialists). Then came the discovery of DNA and the chemical basis of organisms. This poses a totally insurmountable problem to abiogenesis. The smallest living cells has a DNA string of some one million base pairs long and some 600 genes, even cutting this number by a quarter as the smallest possible living cell would give us a string of some 250,000 base pairs of DNA. It is important to note here that DNA can be arranged in any of the four basic codes equally well, there is no chemical or other necessity to the sequence. The chances of such an arrangement arising are therefore 4^250,000. Now the number of atoms in the universe is said to be about 4^250. I would therefore call 4^250,000 an almost infinitely impossible chance (note that the supposition advanced that perhaps it was RNA that produced the first life has this same problem). The problem though is even worse than that. Not only do you need two (2) strings of DNA perfectly matched to have life, but you also need a cell so that the DNA code can get the material to sustain that life. It is therefore a chicken and egg problem, you cannot have life without DNA (or RNA if one wants to be generous) but one also has to have the cell itself to provide the nutrients for the sustenance of the first life. Add to this problem that for the first life to have been the progenitor of all life on earth, it necessarily needs to have been pretty much the same as all life now on earth is, otherwise it could not have been the source of the life we know. Given all these considerations, yes, abiogenesis is impossible.

Darwin and His Theory:
Charles Darwin - The Truth -- Darwin's Racism -- Darwi n's Family -- Malthus and evolutionists -- Darwin's Environment -- Darwin, Racism, Evil -- Ascent of Racism -- Talk.Origins and the Darwin/Hitler Test -- Darwin's finches Evolution in real time -- Effects of the 1998 El Niño on Darwins finches on Daphne -- Punctuated Equilibrium at Twenty -- Homology A Concept in Crisis. Origins & Design 182. Wells, Jonathan -- Darwin's Creation Myth -- David Berlinsky 'The Deniable Darwin	Evolutionists try to paint Darwin as a quiet scientist working hard on writing his theory. However, this is a totally false statement. Yes, he was a recluse. However, he was neither a scintist not a very nice person as the following quote shows: With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. From: Charles Darwin, "The Descent of Man", Chapter V.

Evolutionist Censorship:
Scientists Censored for Publicly Exposing Flaws in Evolution - Suite101.com -- Science and Fairness -- Duane Gish Responds to Joyce Arthur's Critique -- Do Creationists Publish in Notable Refereed Journals? -- Censorship of Information on Origins -- Professor Rigid on Evolution (must "believe" to get med school rec)	Evolutionists almost since the start have tried to silence opponents. While they constantly claim to be scientists, it seems that instead of following the principles of science - questioning, discussion, and challenging of existing theories, they follow the principles of ideology - silencing and destroying opponents.

Various Topics:
A Critique of '29 Evidences for Macroevolution' -- Blind Atheist -- Freeper Views on Origins -- Freeper Views on Origins - Patriarchs -- Creation/Evolution Debate -- Homology -- 15 Answers to John Rennie and SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN's Nonsense (by Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub> -- Sir Karl Popper "Science as Falsification," 1963 -- Pope John Paul II: Truth Cannot Contradict Truth (Statement on Evolution - 1996) -- Evolution Shams -- A Critique of PBS's Evolution -- Evolution of a Creationist -- Evolution, Creation, and Thermodynamics -- God, Humanity and the Cosmos Book Section Evolutionary Biology and Theology -- The Revolution Against Evolution -- Sexual Reproduction A Continuing Mystery to Evolutionists -- Splifford FAQ (How talk.origins and sci.bio.evolution really work -- Mathematics vs Evolution -- Evolution vs Logic -- Natural Selection an Agency of Stasis, not Change -- Evolution as Anti-Science -- Critique of Gould -- Radiocarbon dating things which should not radiocarbon date... -- Evolution or Christianity -- Funding for Evolution -- Scientists find biological reality behind religious experience [Free Republic] -- Doctors increasingly find introducing prayer helps calm patients and speeds recovery -- The healing power of prayer. -- There is power in prayer [Free Republic] -- Micro vs Macroevolution -- Science Design Kit -- 50 Reasons to Leave Evolutionism -- The Evolution of Truth -- Fossils and dating -- - Talk.Origins: Deception by Omission -- Talk Origins - FAQ or Fiction? -- McCluskey, E. S. --- Which Vertebrates Make Vitamin C? -- Vitamin c Pseudogene -- Snapshots of God -- Critics of Evolution - Book Reviews	While evolution claims to explain the descent of one species from another, it has never been able to do so. The original explanation for how evolution transforms species, natural selection, has things backwards. Natural selection kills, it does not create anything. For evolution to be true it needed to propose a creative force which would have been able to add new traits, new functions to the simplest creatures and gradually transform them into more complex ones. The original proposal by Darwin, the melding of features from the parents, did not answer this problem, nor does the more modern version of the exchange of genetic information that occurs in procreation. Such methods do not add any information either, they just reshuffle the information which already exists in the species. Clearly this cannot be the source of increased complexity either. With the re-discovery of genetics in the 20th Century, the Darwinists finally accepted the incorrectness of the melding theory and proposed mutations as the agent of creation of new information. They ran into the problem that with individuals receiving half their genes from each parent and half the genes of each parent being passed on to the progeny, the chances of a new mutation, even one which might be favorable, had not only a very small chance of surviving more than a few generations, but also had an almost impossible chance of spreading throughout a species. They therefore proposed that most mutations were neutral ones and by gradual accumulation they would change the species. This explanation did not even solve the problem of how difficult it was for any mutation to survive, let alone spread throughout a species. The discovery of DNA made the above possibility, already quite unlikely and totally unproven, just about totally impossible. The high complexity of a gene and more importantly experiments showing that changing even one of the thousand DNA bases of a gene are likely to destroy functioning completely and are extremely unlikely to enhance it, presented another serious problem for evolution. This was 'solved' by proposing that gene duplication would create new functions without destroying necessary functioning. Of course, as before, this was only theory and no experimental proof of it was found to support it. The same problem of it being hard to change a gene favorably applied to such genes, the only explanatory gain was that incorrect mutations would not be deadly. Even then, this was insufficient explanation for the transformation of species. Similar genes, which are fairly common, only accomplish similar functions. The vast changes required for complete species transformation, are unexplainable without the creation of totally new genes. With the discovery that genes themselves are just factories and are controlled by other DNA in the organism, and that a single gene often produces many proteins, this explanation was rendered inadequate. Now a new function, which was already known to most likely require more than a single new gene, would require a whole complex of DNA outside the gene to make it work when and if needed. This makes the evolutionary explanation of random, non-directed species change totally untenable and indeed biologists are beginning to call the developmental process of an organism a program. Like all programs, those for life are not made at random.