Mutations Undermine Evolution

Thank You for making me so wonderfully complex!

Your workmanship is marvelous—how well I know it. 

Psalm 139:14 NLT

"A mutation is simply an inheritable error that occurs when DNA is copied. A long-standing assumption of biological evolution was that mutations are completely random. This is what most evolutionists

believed, and this is what most students have been taught. This randomness is important for evolution theory because it allows for any and all possible mutational changes to happen. A series of discoveries have proven that assumption to be false.

A recent study found something previously unknown in the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Also known as thale cress, A. thaliana is one of the ‘workhorses’ of modern molecular genetics.

Associated with the DNA in chromosomes is a group of proteins known as histones. Their usual role is to provide structural support to the coiled DNA that makes up the chromosome. By wrapping around and around histone proteins, DNA is also able to attain an incredibly compact conformation. The researchers discovered that certain portions of the plant’s genome are surrounded by specialized histones that have chemical markers which detect mutations and release chemical signals to bring in DNA repair proteins.

Copying errors (‘typos’ in the DNA, as it were) take place regularly in the complex process of DNA replication. But they will often be repaired by the cell’s machinery. 

As a result, the error is not passed on to succeeding generations as an inherited mutation. 

This study indicates that certain parts of the genome, particularly in areas essential to the organism’s functioning, are more likely to be repaired, and thus less likely to suffer mutational change, than other parts.

Monroe said he was shocked to find this indication of non-randomness in the process of mutation, as he had been taught the opposite as far back as high school.

The article, however, was quick to perform damage control for evolution with this throw-away line: “The new finding does not disprove or discredit the theory of evolution, and the researchers said randomness still plays a big role in mutations.”

However, there was no attempt to explain why this was not a problem for evolution, just a fact-free assurance that boils down to nothing more than: ‘Don’t worry, don’t doubt’.

Those processes would need to have morphed from one strategy to another over time, but the mutations required would affect reproduction, and successful reproduction is required for the supposed evolutionary process.

***And the genes that control this process, the very ones that would have needed to be changed by mutation in the evolutionary scenario, are exactly the kind that these special histones would prevent from mutating.

The genome appears to be designed to resist the major evolutionary changes that are needed to create the extreme diversity seen among living things. These specialized histones are another example of this design." 

CMI

Triplicate Memory Storage

 I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are Thy works; Psalm 139:14

"The memory of a specific experience is stored in multiple parallel “copies.” 

These copies are 

---kept for varying lengths of time

---modified to some extent, 

---and sometimes eventually deleted.

Professor Flavio Donato’s research group at the University’s Biozentrum found that memory development begins long before birth. 

At least three different groups of neurons in the brain’s hippocampus emerge at different stages during embryonic development. A single event is stored in parallel memory copies in all three — in triplicate, if you like.

First to arrive during development, the early-born neurons are responsible for the long-term persistence of a memory. In fact,

even though their memory copy is initially too weak for the brain to access, it becomes stronger and stronger as time passes. Also in humans, the brain might have access to such memory only some time after its encoding.
In contrast, the memory copy of the same event created by the late-born neurons is very strong at the beginning but fades over time, so that if one waits long enough, such a copy becomes inaccessible to the brain. 

In the middle ground, among neurons emerging in between the two extremes during development, a more stable copy could be observed.

The hippocampus is the seahorse-shaped inner part of the brain that plays an important role in memory and learning. There are actually two hippocampi, one on each side, but they are generally referred to as a single unit. People who have lost one or both have great difficulty forming or retaining memories.

The researchers think that the type of neuron in which a memory is stored there might relate to how easy it is for memories to change. The memories stored short-term via late-born neurons can, they say, be modified and rewritten: “This means that remembering a situation shortly after it has happened primes the late-born neurons to become active and integrate present information within the original memory.” 

But when an event is remembered after much time has passed, the memory retrieved from the  early-born neurons is hard to change.

Recalling an event soon after it occurs generally draws on those neurons that emerge late in development, which store the more malleable trace of the memory—which means that as we remember it, we can layer onto that memory trace associations with related events and ideas, and other new information. 

For example, you may learn to associate your first memory of a room with more recent experiences in that room, such as of a bad smell or painful accident. 

The different neuron populations allow us to preserve fundamental aspects of a memory over the long term, while also enabling us to adapt and incorporate new or related information we have learned about the world." 

MindMatters

Sweet & Bitter Taste

I will praise Thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made... Psalm 139:14

"A perfect example is another taste, bitterness.
Unlike sweet receptors, 

---which detect desirable substances in foods, 

bitter receptors 

---detect undesirable ones: toxins. 

And the brain responds appropriately.

While sweet taste tells you to keep eating, bitter taste tells you to spit things out.

It’s impossible for anything to make evolutionary sense, because evolution is senseless.

Evolution is not about sense.

It’s about chance.

The only explanation that does make consistent sense is that.... is a created being with a conscience and rational nature that is un-evolved and immaterial. "
CEH

BIG BANG: Undermined by James Webb Space Telescope (JWST )

In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. 

Genesis 1:1

"William G. Tifft in 1973: “quantized redshifts.”

Tifft claimed to have detected
--a periodicity to redshift values,
--rather than a continuum.
*The big bang predicted a continuum of redshifts due to the expansion of the universe.
JWST kept finding big, bright galaxies too early for comfort.

The bright galaxies that JWST saw would be like seeing 

---a clustering of lights around big cities, 

whereas theory predicts something like 

---the light around more rural settings like Yellowstone National Park.

For physicists, the observations imply that 

---there is either something fundamentally wrong with the physics underlying the models 

---or a missing ingredient in the early universe that scientists have not accounted for.

The MIT team explored the possibility of the latter, and whether the missing ingredient might be early dark energy.
Q: So what is early dark energy but a fudge factor?
A: It’s “a sort of antigravitational force that is turned on only at very early times.” Sounds like the Guth Goof, concocting inflation out of whole cloth to solve one problem by creating others.
CEH

4 Problems for the human evolutionary model

 So God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 

Genesis 1:27

"The human evolutionary model has many fundamental problems.

For example, there is strong evidence that human populations cannot survive in deep time due the relentless accumulation of slightly deleterious mutations (Sanford 2014). 

Many of the mutations that account for the millions of rare alleles in the human population should be very slightly deleterious. This should result in continuous genetic degeneration and eventual extinction. 

A second profound problem with the human evolutionary model is the fact that there is simply no credible way that mutation/selection can create the vast amount of new information that would be required to change an ape population into a human population. 

The enormous difficulty of creating the biological information that makes life, and makes us human, has been demonstrated on many levels (Marks et al. 2013). 

The counter-claim has been that the famous nylonase gene is proof that it is easy to create new functional biological information. However, the spontaneous nylonase claim has recently been falsified (Cordova and Sanford 2017). 

The human evolution model has a third glaring problem called “the waiting time problem”. It turns out that it would take at least 84 million years to create and fix a nucleotide string consisting of only two letters in a human-like ancestral population (Sanford et al. 2015). Yet human evolution requires a vast number of specific nucleotide strings that are much longer than two letters long. 

A fourth serious problem associated with the human evolutionary model involves the fact that the bones that are popularly claimed to be “transitional fossils” are actually highly contested within the field of paleoanthropology (Rupe and Sanford 2017)."

John C. Sanford

EXO-PLANETS: Fastest Moving Planet (Kepler-78b)

"Astronomers have discovered a hot Earth-size planet so close to its

star that a year on that exoplanet lasts just 8.5 hours, making it one of the fastest alien planets ever seen...... the host star of the planet, called Kepler-78b, is bright enough for other telescopes to spot the world.
Kepler-78b is about 100 times closer to its star than the Earth is to the sun...The planet's surface bakes at an iron-melting temperature somewhere between 3,680 degrees Fahrenheit and 5,120 degrees Fahrenheit." 

Space.com

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by His Son,

whom He hath appointed heir of all things,

by whom also He made the worlds; 

Hebrews 1:2

The "At, For & In" of God's Creation Memorial: The Sabbath

And it shall come to pass,.... from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. 

Isaiah 66:23

"We have seen that the Sabbath

was

sanctified at Creation (Genesis 2:3)

made for man (Mark 2:27)

embodied in Jehovah's royal law." (Exodus 20:10)

Darwin's Missing Book

 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools. 

Romans 1:22
"Spurred by Alfred Russel Wallace’s famous letter outlining a verysimilar theory, Darwin — to avoid pre-emption — published On the Origin of Species (1859) as an abstract, promising a much longer book supplying the evidence for his thesis. 
Q: Why didn’t Darwin publish the evidence for his momentous theory? 
Darwin often cited illness as a reason for not publishing. But Shedinger draws a different conclusion, based on reading the manuscript:
When the big book was eventually published in 1975, it promptly disappeared from public attention. Why?
Well, one reason, Shedinger says, is that it never did supply the promised evidence. Darwin continued to rely on artificial selection by humans as an analogy for unplanned natural selection. Instead of the promised long catalogue of facts, he offers ten proposed examples of natural selection, along with imaginary scenarios. From Schedinger: “Readers hoping to see a rich array of empirical evidence for the creative powers of natural selection would have been disappointed.” 

But he never published that longer book, even though it was, Shedinger tells us, three-quarters written by that time. He went on to publish works on orchids and sexual selection instead.

Two Questions Arise

Q: And why was his thesis hailed as one of the greatest ideas in science despite that fact?

"Darwin, I want to suggest, knew that he did not have the kind of evidence necessary to prove the theory of natural selection, and his rhetoric of illness provided a ready excuse for his endless delays in presenting the promised evidence to the public. It was also a ready excuse for his absence from scientific meetings where he might be confronted by critics and have to defend his ideas. (p. 43)"

EN&V

Misuse of 2 Peter 3:8

 But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. 2 Peter 3:8

“But how can the days of creation in Genesis 1 be ordinary days when the Bible says a day is like a thousand years?

I have found the main reason many Christians try to reinterpret the word day in Genesis and use this passage from 2 Peter 3:8 to justify this is that they really are trying to fit the false millions of years belief into Scripture. 

But how will making each day 1,000 years help accommodate millions of years—it won’t! 

The Hebrew word for day, yom, is used hundreds of times in the Old Testament, but I don’t hear anyone questioning what those days mean by claiming a day is like a thousand years. 

Q: So why is it that they only single out the use of the word day in Genesis 1? 

A: Again, it’s because they’re impacted by millions of years, and they’re trying to fit long ages into Genesis 1. 

Q: Do we ever hear anyone claiming Jonah was in the great fish for 3,000 years because a day is like a thousand years? 

A: Of course not.

Now, if we take Genesis 1 as written, and look at the context for the word day, yom, for each of the days of creation, we can come to no other conclusion than those days are ordinary approximately 24-hour days. 

When yom is qualified by night, evening, morning, or number, it always means an ordinary day. 

All six days have yom qualified by evening, morning, and number. Day one also qualifies yom with night, and day seven is qualified with a number. 

All seven days in Genesis 1 are ordinary days. 

Yes, the days in Genesis were ordinary days! We need to take Genesis 1 naturally—as written and not try to reinterpret the days because of outside influences." 

Ken Ham