läs detta
Mutations
Mutations are defined as breaks or replacements taking place in the DNA molecule, which is found in the nucleus of the cell of a living organism and which holds all the genetic information. These breaks or replacements are the result of external effects such as radiation or chemical action. Every mutation is an "accident" and either damages the nucleotides making up the DNA or changes their locations. Most of the time, they cause so much damage and modification that the cell cannot repair them.
Mutation, which evolutionists frequently hide behind, is not a magic wand that transforms living organisms into a more advanced and perfect form. The direct effect of mutations is harmful. The changes effected by mutations can only be like those experienced by the people in Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and Chernobyl: that is, death, disability, and freaks of nature…
The reason for this is very simple: DNA has a very complex structure and random effects can only cause harm to this structure. B.G. Ranganathan states:
Mutations are small, random, and harmful. They rarely occur and the best possibility is that they will be ineffectual. These four characteristics of mutations imply that mutations cannot lead to an evolutionary development. A random change in a highly specialised organism is either ineffectual or harmful. A random change in a watch cannot improve the watch. It will most probably harm it or at best be ineffectual. An earthquake does not improve the city, it brings destruction.9
Not surprisingly, no useful mutation has been observed so far. All mutations have proved to be harmful. The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver comments on the report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, which had been formed to investigate mutations that may have been caused by the nuclear weapons used in the Second World War:
Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?10
Every effort put into "generating a useful mutation" has resulted in failure. For decades, evolutionists carried out many experiments to produce mutations in fruit flies as these insects reproduce very rapidly and so mutations would show up quickly. Generation upon generation of these flies were mutated, yet no useful mutation was ever observed. Evolutionist geneticist Gordon Taylor writes thus:
In all the thousands of fly-breeding experiments carried out all over the world for more than fifty years, a distinct new species has never been seen to emerge... or even a new enzyme.11
Another researcher, Michael Pitman, comments on the failure of the experiments carried out on fruit flies:
Morgan, Goldschmidt, Muller, and other geneticists have subjected generations of fruit flies to extreme conditions of heat, cold, light, dark, and treatment by chemicals and radiation. All sorts of mutations, practically all trivial or positively deleterious, have been produced. Man-made evolution? Not really: Few of the geneticists' monsters could have survived outside the bottles they were bred in. In practice mutants die, are sterile, or tend to revert to the wild type.12
1 normal
2 mutant
3
1. A normal fruit fly (drosophila). 2.: A fruit fly with its legs jutting from its head; a mutation induced by radiation. 3: A disastrous effect of mutations on the human body. The boy aisa Chernobyl nuclear plant accident victim.
The same holds true for man. All mutations that have been observed in human beings have deleterious results. On this issue, evolutionists throw up a smokescreen and try to show even examples of such deleterious mutation as "evidence for evolution". All mutations that take place in humans result in physical deformities, in infirmities such as mongolism, Down syndrome, albinism, dwarfism or cancer. These mutations are presented in evolutionist textbooks as examples of "the evolutionary mechanism at work". Needless to say, a process that leaves people disabled or sick cannot be "an evolutionary mechanism"-evolution is supposed to produce better forms that are more fit to survive.
To summarise, there are three main reasons why mutations cannot be pressed into the service of supporting evolutionists' assertions:
*The direct effect of mutations is harmful: Since they occur randomly, they almost always damage the living organism that undergoes them. Reason tells us that unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will not improve that structure but impair it. Indeed, no "useful mutation" has ever been observed.
* Mutations add no new information to an organism's DNA: The particles making up the genetic information are either torn from their places, destroyed, or carried off to different places. Mutations cannot make a living thing acquire a new organ or a new trait. They only cause abnormalities like a leg sticking out of the back, or an ear from the abdomen.
* In order for a mutation to be transferred to the subsequent generation, it has to have taken place in the reproductive cells of the organism: A random change that occurs in a casual cell or organ of the body cannot be transferred to the next generation. For example, a human eye altered by the effects of radiation or by other causes will not be passed on to subsequent generations.
* Briefly, it is impossible for living beings to have evolved, because there exists no mechanism in nature that can cause them to evolve. This agrees with the evidence of the fossil record, which demonstrates that this scenario is far removed from reality
9. B. G. Ranganathan, Origins?, Pennsylvania: The Banner Of Truth Trust, 1988.
10. Warren Weaver, "Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation", Science, Vol 123, June 29, 1956, p. 1159.
11. Gordon R. Taylor, The Great Evolution Mystery, New York: Harper & Row, 1983, p. 48.
12. Michael Pitman, Adam and Evolution, London: River Publishing, 1984, p. 70
Svar till trapz [
Gå till post]:
Steningar och stympningar gör det dig glad :O för det är väl sharia eller har jag missuppfattat sharia lagarna?
stena vem då ?? enligt islamisk lag stenas bara de som varit otrogna mot sin partner i äktenskap
så om du tänker vara otrogen din partner när du är gift så klart att detta är något skrämmande för dig, men om du inte har några planer för sånt , då är det ingen mening att oroa sig för det om man bodde i ett islamisk stat som utför sharia lagar.
stympningar , kvinnostympningar där man skär av klitoris, har ingeting med islam att göra, detta är afrikansk tradition som härstammar från Egypten, ingeting med islam att göra, men
att männen ska omskära sig, jag är omskärd, och detta är bara positiv, om jag inte var omskärd skulle jag omskära mig , för att det är renare utanförhud, av hygieniska orsaker, plus ser bättre ut utan förhud, plus att kvinnor tycker om mer renare och hårdare penisar ;)
