Please consider this revealing quote:


11/03/04
by ARN Staff 09:49:31 am, Categories: Darwinism, Natural Selection, 125 words
Cohen, I.L. "Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities"
" 'Survival of the fittest' and 'natural selection.' No matter what phraseology one generates, the basic fact remains the same: any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides (in the DNA). Nature or species do not have the capacity for rearranging them, nor adding to them. Consequently no leap (saltation) can occur from one species to another. The only way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention from an outside source of intelligence: one who knows what it is doing, such as our genetic engineers are now performing in their laboratories."

Cohen, I.L. (1984)
Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities
New York: NW Research Publications, Inc., p. 209

Think about this. Darwinists posit that change comes to an organism through natural selection and mutations. And change to any body plan HAS to take place at the DNA level. But Darwinists also posit that the organism itself does not change from within as a result of any intelligent direction. It all has to be through natural selection or mutations, which are both unguided.

Now here is where it gets interesting. The only change possible under Darwinian theory, is by DNA mutations caused primarily by background radiation in the atmosphere. And yes, it is true that radiations causes mutations by knocking off parts of the DNA structure. It is also true that most of these mutations are either negative, or neutral. Very few are beneficial, and those that are positive are caused by destroying part of the delicate DNA structure. For example, part of a gene for blossom color in a flower may get knocked off, and this causes the blossom color to change from say, red to orange, because red minus a certain gene sequence happens to approximate the gene instruction for orange.

But bear in mind, that all of this change comes about by partial destruction of the DNA code. There is no possibility of a new DNA code being creatively produced. And since adaptions require creative changes in the gene code, how then could a positive, new, creative adaptation occur?

In a nutshell, mutations alter DNA by destruction ONLY. But creative adaptations require new, creative gene codes. So how is it even possible to create something new by destruction, and where does the original code come from in the first place, with no mechanism to build anything new?

It makes no sense, dear reader, and if you think about it, you will see that this truth alone means that a Darwinian body plan does not exist anywhere in nature, and that Darwinian evolution could not possibly be true.

Email