Darwinists' confessions about the mutations
Harun Yahya1188
18 February, 2018
There is no evidence mutations create new structures. They merely alter existing ones.
Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, p. 11
To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability."
Cohen, I.L. (1984) "Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities ", New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81.
Micro-mutations do occur, but the theory that they can account for evolutionary change is either falsified or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical, theory. Suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology:… I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question; How did this ever happen?" …
Soren Lovtrup, (1987) Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, London: Croom Helm, p. 422
It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true of some ecological chain relationships.
Mayr, Ernst (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296
What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. (Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 87)
Stephen Jay Gould:
You don't make new species by mutating the species. . . . A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.
Stephen J. Gould, speech at Hobart College, February 14, 1980.
Prof. Richard B. Goldschmidt (University of California at Berkeley):
It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations [one or only a few mutations]. In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.
Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40 (January 1952), p. 94
. . I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance."—*George Wald, in *Paul S. Moorehead and *Martin M. Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, pp. 18-19.
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977) Evolution of Living Organism Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103
Davis and Kenyon, Of Pandas and People, p. 11
To propose and argue that mutations even in tandem with 'natural selection' are the root-causes for 6,000,000 viable, enormously complex species, is to mock logic, deny the weight of evidence, and reject the fundamentals of mathematical probability."
Cohen, I.L. (1984) "Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities ", New York: New Research Publications, Inc., p. 81.
Micro-mutations do occur, but the theory that they can account for evolutionary change is either falsified or else it is an unfalsifiable, hence metaphysical, theory. Suppose that nobody will deny that it is a great misfortune if an entire branch of science becomes addicted to a false theory. But this is what has happened in biology:… I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the history of science. When this happens, many people will pose the question; How did this ever happen?" …
Soren Lovtrup, (1987) Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, London: Croom Helm, p. 422
It is a considerable strain on one's credulity to assume that finely balanced systems such as certain sense organs (the eye of vertebrates, or the bird's feather) could be improved by random mutations. This is even more true of some ecological chain relationships.
Mayr, Ernst (1942) Systematics and the Origin of Species, p. 296
What is the use of their unceasing mutations, if they do not [produce evolutionary] change? In sum, the mutations of bacteria and viruses are merely hereditary fluctuations around a median position; a swing to the right, a swing to the left, but no final evolutionary effect. (Pierre Paul Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, 1977, p. 87)
Stephen Jay Gould:
You don't make new species by mutating the species. . . . A mutation is not the cause of evolutionary change.
Stephen J. Gould, speech at Hobart College, February 14, 1980.
Prof. Richard B. Goldschmidt (University of California at Berkeley):
It is true that nobody thus far has produced a new species or genus, etc., by macromutation [a combination of many mutations]; it is equally true that nobody has produced even a species by the selection of micromutations [one or only a few mutations]. In the best-known organisms, like Drosophila, innumerable mutants are known. If we were able to combine a thousand or more of such mutants in a single individual, this still would have no resemblance whatsoever to any type known as a [new] species in nature.
Richard B. Goldschmidt, “Evolution, as Viewed by One Geneticist,” American Scientist, Vol. 40 (January 1952), p. 94
. . I took a little trouble to find whether a single amino acid change in a hemoglobin mutation is known that doesn't affect seriously the function of that hemoglobin. One is hard put to find such an instance."—*George Wald, in *Paul S. Moorehead and *Martin M. Kaplan, Mathematical Challenges to the Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, pp. 18-19.
"The opportune appearance of mutations permitting animals and plants to meet their needs seems hard to believe. Yet the Darwinian theory is even more demanding: a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to occur.... There is no law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it."
Grasse, Pierre-Paul (1977) Evolution of Living Organism Academic Press, New York, N.Y., p. 103
SHARE
TOPICS
perversionUnhappinessmathematicsmushroomfragranceGhazi sayingfollower of Hazrat Mahdifreemason lodgesOttoman historylast prophetWar of IndependenceReligious Affairspiousfoster childdiscussionconjecturewise pesonmaturityHazrat AliPharaoh's wifecruelconflictSurat al-Cumadonkeys loaded with booksblessingthose with sickness in their heartsal-Ghaffaranti-thesisthesisschoolNevzat TandoganNamik GedikIspartaAnkaraAdnan MenderesPurest Spiritage of maturitySurat al-MaidaKehlenSurah Al ImranGalaxyBudaAnsarrefugeehejiraAydin DoganThe National ViewOguzhan AsilturkSevket KazanFelicity Party Ahmet Hakanal-HadiAllah's willmeanswillhumble free willexplanationstyleSahih HadithHaji BekhtasYunus EmreLion of Allahspiritual blissseal