WHY DO YOU BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION?

> Home

> Big Bang

> Origin of Life

> Genetics

> Mutations

> Genetic Recombination

> Natural Selection

> Fossil Evidence

> Stasis

> "Junk" DNA

> Endogenous Retroviruses

	“So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date.” —Trisha Gura “Bones, Molecules or Both” Nature, Vol. 406, pg 230-233. July 20, 2000

Genetics

From what is currently known as fact in the field of genetics, here are JUST A FEW FACTS THAT MAKE DARWINISM A FAIRY TALE:

Only changes in the germline (cells involved with sexual reproduction) are relevant to evolution. During meiosis http://www.cellsalive.com/meiosis.htm germ cells combine by a very complicated process and most molecular changes in them harm the genetic integrity of the offspring, instead of improving it or add complexity to it. Also, programmed cell death (apoptosis) almost always prevents the change from proliferating to offspring:

• “In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
  http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/biot.2006.1.4.357
  
• “At the genomic level, recombination creates diversity by reshuffling genetic information between homologous chromosomes … Alterations in the normal recombination pattern are often associated with errors in chromosome segregation in humans, and these errors are a major cause of spontaneous abortions and congenital birth defects, including mental retardation.”
  (Under section, Meiotic Recombination Does Not Occur at Random Throughout the Genome)
  http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=
  10.1371/journal.pbio.0050333
  
• “Within the last decade, aberrant meiotic recombination has been confirmed as a molecular risk factor for chromosome nondisjunction in humans. Recombination tethers homologous chromosomes, linking and guiding them through proper segregation at meiosis I. In model organisms, mutations that disturb the recombination pathway increase the frequency of chromosome malsegregation and alterations in both the amount and placement of meiotic recombination are associated with nondisjunction. This association has been established for humans as well.”
  http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=86896
  
• “No nucleotide sequences are altered at the site of exchange; the cleavage and rejoining event occur so precisely that not a single nucleotide is lost or gained.”
  Essential Cell Biology” textbook, Second Edition, Section 6:21, 2003 Garland Science (See PDF)
  
• “Meiotic cells possess a surveillance mechanism referred to as the ‘pachytene’ checkpoint or the meiotic recombination checkpoint that monitors these critical meiosis-specific events … In response to defects in recombination that lead to accumulation of unrepaired DSBs and/or other recombination intermediates, the pachytene checkpoint triggers meiotic cell cycle arrest or delay to prevent meiotic chromosome missegregation (Roeder and Bailis, 2000)."
  http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/116/2/259
  
• “Apoptosis, or programmed cell death, is a normal component of the development and health of multicellular organisms. Cells die in response to a variety of stimuli and during apoptosis they do so in a controlled, regulated fashion … “
  http://www.sgul.ac.uk/depts/immunology/~dash/apoptosis/
  
• “In females of many species, over half of the germ-cell (oocyte) population dies by apoptosis before birth … Krakauer and Mira have interpreted this death of germ cells as a developmental solution to the accumulation of mutations in mitochondria, proposing that prenatal oocyte apoptosis effectively removes oocytes carrying mutant mitochondria.”
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6769/full/403500a0.html
  

Almost ALL mutations are detected and ‘re-written’ by miniscule machines that check for errors:

• “The copying is far more precise than pure chemistry could manage—only about 1 mistake in 10 billion copyings, because there is editing (proof-reading and error-checking) machinery, again encoded in the DNA.”
  http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i2/dna.asp?vPrint=1
• “DNA is a fragile molecule that undergoes dramatic changes when exposed to radiation, ultraviolet light, toxic chemicals or byproducts of normal cellular processes. DNA damage, if not repaired in time, may lead to mutations, cancer or cell death. Many helicases in the Rad3 family are key players in the cell’s elaborate machinery to prevent and repair such damage.”
  http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=122568903

Organisms can miraculously restore their DNA several generations AFTER a mutation has occurred:

• “Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD5 (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information that was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations. This previously undescribed process is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore seems to be a general mechanism for extra-genomic inheritance of DNA sequence information. We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.”
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380.html
  
• “Here, we show that a rice triploid and diploid hybridization resulted in stable diploid progenies, both in genotypes and phenotypes, through gene homozygosity. Furthermore, their gene homozygosity can be inherited through 8 generations, and they can convert DNA sequences of other rice varieties into their own. Molecular-marker examination confirmed that this type of genome-wide gene conversion occurred at a very high frequency. Possible mechanisms, including RNA-templated repair of double-strand DNA, are discussed.”
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502903?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.
  PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

Instead of confirming classifications, DNA analysis has only confused evolutionary relationships:

• “When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing many different genes in different organisms, the comparisons proved confounding. Rather than clarifying the tree that seeks to show how life evolved, they often produced new trees that differ from the traditional tree and conflict with each other as well. Now some microbiologists, pointing to evidence that microbes have swapped genes wantonly over evolutionary history, say that many of these genes are an unreliable guide to evolutionary history and the old tree is still basically sound. But others think it's time to uproot the old tree and are proposing candidates for new trees based on specific features of the genome and cell structure. And still others worry that gene swapping has turned the tree of life into a tangled briar whose lineages will be next to impossible to discern.”
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/284/5418/1305
• “So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date.”
  Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules or Both” Nature, Vol. 406, pg 230-233. July 20, 2000

It was anticipated that once genetic testing could produce fossil dating, the fossil evidence for evolution would be overwhelmingly convincing. The exact opposite is now true:

• “Therefore, we conclude that dating ages of origin of taxa with molecular phylogenetic trees where fossils are used as calibration points, is, at best, ambiguous (e.g, Sanderson 1997: Thorne & Kishino 2002).” “Temporal paralogy, cladograms, and the quality of the fossil record” Publications Scientifiques du Museum national d’Histoire naturelle, Paris, Geodiversitas, 2004, 26 (3) (See PDF)

Previously called ‘junk DNA’ by evolutionists has been found to have critical roles:

• See “Junk DNA” – The Evolutionary Nightmare”
  http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/junk_dna.html

‘Mitochondrial Eve’ and the ‘Molecular Clock’ DNA dating techniques have found to be invalid and useless:

• “There is a general ignorance among proponents of «unique mother» hypotheses regarding the distribution of biological variability on the surface of the globe, a fact which renders the molecular clock inaccurate, and which upsets the simplistic proposal that molecular diversity equates with time …
  These and other difficulties effectively refute the «Mitochondrial Eve» hypothesis, which in any case much resembles creationism of a special kind, in which the offspring of a breeding pair are visualised as belonging to a species different from its parents. Such extreme examples of the punctuational mode of evolution are highly likely to be incorrect.”
  http://www.springerlink.com/content/mv5812037q10u886/
  
• “Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the "molecular assumption."
  http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/biot.2006.1.4.357
  
• “For more than two decades, biologists have used mitochondrial DNA to peer into the past, to time the divergences of organisms from each other, and to map human migrations. Now a wash of sequence data reveals that in many cases, the main assumption underlying this "molecular clock" doesn't hold up: The clock ticks at different rates in different lineages and at different times.”
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/283/5407/1435

Just a few miraculous examples ‘random chance’:

• “Johns Hopkins researchers say they have figured out how human and all animal cells tune in to a key signal, one that literally transmits the instructions that shape their final bodies. It turns out the cells assemble their own little radio antenna on their surfaces to help them relay the proper signal to the developmental proteins 'listening' on the inside of the cell …
  'Any miscues with the Wnt signaling pathway,' says Katsanis, 'and you’re looking at major childhood diseases and defects.”
  http://www.physorg.com/news110637254.html
  
• “Scientists are reporting evidence that intact, double-stranded DNA has the “amazing” ability to recognize similarities in other DNA strands from a distance. And then like friends with similar interests, the bits of genetic material hangout or congregate together. The recognition — of similar sequences in DNA’s chemical subunits — occurs in a way once regarded as impossible, the researchers suggest in a study scheduled for the Jan. 31 issue of ACS’ Journal of Physical Chemistry B.
  Geoff S. Baldwin, Sergey Leikin, John M. Seddon, and Alexei A. Kornyshev and colleagues say the homology recognition between sequences of several hundred nucleotides occurs without physical contact or presence of proteins, factors once regarded as essential for the phenomenon.”
  http://www.physorg.com/printnews.php?newsid=120735315
  

	"Of the billions of miles of DNA inside each of us, about 95% is unaccounted for. This non-coding material, the Dark Matter of genetics, was prematurely labeled 'junk DNA,' with the implication that, because we didn't know what it did, it was of no use. This may have been one of the costliest examples of scientific arrogance in recent history." —John Mattick Australian geneticist, as referred to Junk DNA: What's in a Name? by M. Pilkington, The Guardian, January 22, 1004.