Carbon dating disproves evolution

Rated 4.45/5 based on 714 customer reviews

Thus all the right mutations (and none of the destructive ones) must happen at the same time by pure chance. To illustrate just how hopeless it is, imagine this: on the ground are all the materials needed to build a house (nails, boards, shingles, windows, etc.).

We tie a hammer to the wagging tail of a dog and let him wander about the work site for as long as you please, even millions of years.

Sweeps "were too infrequent within the past 250,000 years to have had discernible effects on genomic diversity." "Classic sweeps were not a dominant mode of human adaptation over the past 250,000 years." --Hernandez, Ryan D., Joanna L. Cord Melton, Adam Auton, Gilean Mc Vean, 1000 Genomes Project, Guy Sella, Molly Przeworski. Classic Selective Sweeps Were Rare in Recent Human Evolution. There were many mutations, but none caught on, and the experiment ran into the . The ability to use citrate in the presence of oxygen, trumpeted by evolutionists as a big deal, was the result of previously existing information being rearranged, not the origin of new information.

They wrote that "forward experimental evolution can often be completely reversed with these populations". Mutations that result in a gain of novel information have not been observed.

"Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles." "The probability of fixation in wild populations should be even lower than its likelihood in these experiments." --Burke, Molly K., Joseph P. Most long-term evolution experiments thus far have been performed in bacteria or haploid yeast populations, where, in most environments, there exist a number of loss-of-function mutations that provide a selective advantage." "For instance, sterility in yeast provides a selective advantage by eliminating unnecessary gene expression." "The emergence of the Cit phenotype is the exception in experimental evolution, where most evolved mutations affect independent genes and biological pathways, driven largely by large-target loss-of-function mutations."This candid admission is from the evolutionist journal Nature: "Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change.

The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye.

Whenever variation is pushed to extremes by selective breeding (to get the most milk from cows, sugar from beets, bristles on fruit flies, or any other characteristic), the line becomes sterile and dies out.

That is how the idea of biological evolution has spread since 1859. The types of bird beaks, the colors of moths, leg sizes, etc. Each type and length of beak a finch can have is already in the gene pool and adaptive mechanisms of finches.

Scientists like to study them because a generation (from egg to adult) takes only 9 days. Here is how the imaginary part is supposed to happen: On rare occasions a mutation in DNA improves a creature's ability to survive, so it is more likely to reproduce (natural selection).

In the lab, fruit flies are studied under every conceivable condition. That is evolution's only tool for making new creatures.

Creationists have always agreed that there is variation within species.

What evolutionists do not want you to know is that , something every breeder of animals or plants is aware of.

Leave a Reply