The Mysteries of Life and Evolutionist Errors in New Scientist

New Scientist magazine published an article called "The Mysteries of Life" in its 4 September, 2004, edition. The article in question concentrated on the 10 most important questions that science has been unable to answer. However, the groundless evolutionist claims contained in the article were particularly striking. The claims in question are set out below, and we have added links through which you can read our responses to these.

 The mysteries of life and evolutionist errors in New Scientist

New Scientist magazine published an article called "The Mysteries of Life" in its 4 September, 2004, edition. The article in question concentrated on the 10 most important questions that science has been unable to answer. However, the groundless evolutionist claims contained in the article were particularly striking. The claims in question are set out below, and we have added links through which you can read our responses to these.

The "RNA world" error

The section devoted to the origin of life included the RNA World thesis, a chain in which every single stage is individually impossible. In this scenario, which is difficult even to imagine, it was suggested that the first genomes were made of RNA, and that this "self-sufficient RNA world could then have been superseded by our present DNA one." You can obtain information on how the RNA world thesis, which is nothing but a completely groundless conjecture, is an impossible scenario in the light of scientific findings, here.

The "are we still evolving?" error

In this section it was claimed that mutations allegedly continued throughout the imaginary process of evolution and that, linked to this, human beings adapted according to their environment. However, this mistaken approach to mutations stems from evolution being adopted as a dogma. Since evolutionists blindly accept the myth that human beings evolved in the past, they take their own beliefs as a starting point and have no hesitation about making similar claims regarding the present moment and the future. A short look at the effect of mutations will be sufficient to see the dogmatic aspect of these claims. It is clear that mutations are solely a destructive mechanism. Pierre-Paul Grassé, former president of the French Academy of Sciences, compared mutations to "a typing error made in copying a text."1 In the same way that spelling mistakes do not constitute information, neither do mutations; on the contrary, they destroy existing information. Grassé went on to describe this situation:

Mutations, in time, occur incoherently. They are not complementary to one another, nor are they cumulative in successive generations toward a given direction. They modify what preexists, but they do so in disorder, no matter how…. As soon as some disorder, even slight, appears in an organized being, sickness, then death follow. There is no possible compromise between the phenomenon of life and anarchy. 2

Therefore, as Grassé has expressed it, "no matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."3 As can be seen, the assumption that "human beings are still evolving with mutations" consists of a dogmatic belief in the face of scientific findings.

"The evolution of intelligence" error

The article also contains the claim that intelligence "evolved because it is the best way to survive in a particular ecological niche." Despite all efforts to portray evolutionist scenarios concerning human intelligence produced in the light of Darwinist preconceptions as scientific, they are in fact the exact opposite. Evolutionists have no means with which to test their claims on this subject and repeat the conditions in the alleged evolutionary process. Despite being an evolutionist, Nature magazine editor Henry Gee admits that such claims are unscientific:

For example, the evolution of Man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, brain size, and the coordination between hand and eye, which led to technological achievements such as fire, the manufacture of tools, and the use of language. But such scenarios are subjective. They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. They rely for their currency not on scientific test, but on assertion and the authority of their presentation. 4

The claim of the evolution of intelligence is a tale told in the face of all the facts. You can read an article of ours revealing the invalidity of this claim here.

 

1. Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms, Academic Press, New York, N.Y. 1977, p. 96
2. Ibid., p. 97
3. Ibid., p. 88
4. Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life, The Free Press, A Division of Simon & Schuster, Inc., 1999, p. 5