cambrian_exp

they may be intelligent , but they were not able to use it, just like dolphins who have no arms to hold things. we got intelligence plus free arms to make our imaginations a reality:rolleyes:

we have been digging up fossils and creating museums for past few hundred years, but suppose after 100 million years some civilization took birth and began to dig fossils,then they would find human fossils with dinosaurs and other ancient reptiles. maybe entire history of earth will be messed up for them.

sweet child o mine-- guns n roses november rain --- guns n roses green eyes --- dark moor these songs rock

it was chrismas and little boy meet santa and he wanted gift, boy: santa santa, i want brother. santa: oh boy, oh boy bring your mother.

these creationist people waste their resources in stuff full of nonsense and shit

http://www.msstate.edu/org/sacs/evsim.html this is page i stumbled upon.looks like creationist site, pls see that. also see this http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/

maybe DNA causes cells to become specialized:rolleyes:

heres a geological timeline i have created in photoshop. given a aged look just check it out at this link http://www.geocities.com/time_never_stops/geotime.jpg

whenever i look at house lizard i think of second coming of dinosaurs , well but is it scientifically possible? because there is not much difference between common lizard and first reptiles which gave rise to dinosaurs. and yea we may not develop technology to prevent objects from impacting earth because we will soon or later end up ourselves. most of advanced civilizations end up themselves i think so. because as civilization advances many new different ideologies emrge within it self which is cause of war . so we may soon end up and when mass extinction occurs we may not be able to protect our self and new dinosaurs may rise again . it is possible that invertebrates like octupus eventually colonize land and produce some intelligent species ( as shown in future is wild ) because octupus have tencticules which can be used for handling tools!

but generally most mass extinction have been occuring at rate of 1 per 100 million years and small extinctions at rate of 1 per 30 million years i think

humans will leave the earth or become extinct within 50 million years from now. current rates suggests that major mass extinction does really occurs every 100 million years. last one occured 65 million years ago so next may occur within 35 million years from now. just imagine only creatures less than 15 kg survive i.e very small lizards and insects and some mammals too and evolutionary arms race begins during post extinction period . so these small house lizards can again become large permian type reptiles like archeosaurs and dinosaurs like creature again come into existance like history repeats itself type phenomena? what do you think?

well i found this from http://www.drdino.com From magazines to newspapers...from museums to textbooks...the concept that dinosaurs turned into birds is presented as a fact. Yet this concept, like all of the other supposed "facts" of evolution, is wrought with problems which are seldom exposed. Whenever dinosaurs with a bone structure remotely similar to birds are found, the link between dinosaurs and birds is assumed to exist. Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (right) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported: Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that." Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility. The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein! University of Kansas paleontologist Larry Martin sums up the presentation of this dinosaur to bird fossils best: "You have to put this into perspective. To the people who wrote this paper, (linking dinosaurs to birds) the chicken would be a feathered dinosaur." Those who reject the possibility of the sudden appearance of birds have no other alternative than to accept the inadequate evidence for evolution. However, the actual evidence for evolution does not support that this ever happened. Evolution is the only alternative (creation by God) has been arbitrarily eliminated. Rather than blindly accepting the latest evolutionary find, dig into the details and determine if real science proves that reptiles could have turned into birds or lifeless chemicals could have ever "come alive". An honest scientist will follow the data wherever it leads-even if it leads to an encounter with a personal creator. \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ i really have problem with 1st point! how can ancestoral theropods evovle after birds?

well i debated one creationist for few minutes and he said that dino fossils with humans have been found and he has seen that in pic. he said scientists are conspiring against ID and creationism by not showing those fossils because majority of scientists have no morality

Yea i call These creationist as Fanatics or Terrorists, they terrorise science with their horrific theoris lol

huh? u didnt understant 2nd post? whay i meant to say is that i m commerce graduate and still we had evolution in our syllabus

although i am commerce student, i love reading about prehistory and evolution. but i was shocked when we had a few lines on evolution in enviormental science that to in commerce! what the hell commerce students will do of evolution? our government or education board is really mentally retartded to to have one science subject in commerce and arts and one commerce subject in science

what i wanted to tell is, scientific community should ask questions instead of defending evolution, such as why only biblical creationist should be taught in schools why not islamic or hindu? amerika is a secular country every theory then should be taught. such questions should be asked, by the way i am from india and we have no creationists here, not a single and in our schools we have evolution every year! and no one here challenges evolution, in our syllabus evolution is cumpolsary, if you dont read it you lose the marks :D well back to point this is what i got from http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=1842 ============================================================ Here are fourteen natural phenomena which conflict with the evolutionary idea that the universe is billions of years old. The numbers listed below in bold print (usually in the millions of years) are often maximum possible ages set by each process, not the actual ages. The numbers in italics are the ages required by evolutionary theory for each item. The point is that the maximum possible ages are always much less than the required evolutionary ages, while the Biblical age (6,000 years) always fits comfortably within the maximum possible ages. Thus, the following items are evidence against the evolutionary time scale and for the Biblical time scale. Much more young-world evidence exists, but I have chosen these items for brevity and simplicity. Some of the items on this list can be reconciled with the old-age view only by making a series of improbable and unproven assumptions; others can fit in only with a recent creation. 1. Galaxies wind themselves up too fast. The stars of our own galaxy, the Milky Way, rotate about the galactic center with different speeds, the inner ones rotating faster than the outer ones. The observed rotation speeds are so fast that if our galaxy were more than a few hundred million years old, it would be a featureless disc of stars instead of its present spiral shape.1 Yet our galaxy is supposed to be at least 10 billion years old. Evolutionists call this "the winding-up dilemma," which they have known about for fifty years. They have devised many theories to try to explain it, each one failing after a brief period of popularity. The same "winding-up" dilemma also applies to other galaxies. For the last few decades the favored attempt to resolve the puzzle has been a complex theory called "density waves."1 The theory has conceptual problems, has to be arbitrarily and very finely tuned, and has been called into serious question by the Hubble Space Telescope's discovery of very detailed spiral structure in the central hub of the "Whirlpool" galaxy, M51.2 2. Too few supernova remnants. Crab Nebula Photo: Courtesy of NASA According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3 3. Comets disintegrate too quickly. According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and © other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it. 4. Not enough mud on the sea floor. Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it. Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago. 5. Not enough sodium in the sea. Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean. 6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast. Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly. The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15 7. Many strata are too tightly bent. In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16 8. Biological material decays too fast. Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20 9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years. Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24 10. Too much helium in minerals. Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously. 11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata. With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old. 12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons. Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas. 13. Agriculture is too recent. The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31 14. History is too short. According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.31

Abstract Ever since the first dinosaur reconstructions in the mid-1800's, dinosaurs have been big business. They have been used to sell everything from breakfast cereal to gasoline. And now interest is greater than ever. A new craze for dinosaurs and related merchandise is sweeping America and other western nations. Dinosaurs are the newest fad. Will they lead children away from our Creator? Or to Him? Ever since the first dinosaur reconstructions in the mid-1800's, dinosaurs have been big business. They have been used to sell everything from breakfast cereal to gasoline. And now interest is greater than ever. A new craze for dinosaurs and related merchandise is sweeping America and other western nations. Almost anywhere children go these days, they are exposed to dinosaurs in one way or another, even on school milk cartons. Furthermore, these creatures are almost as popular with adults. Much of the trendy merchandise appeals to the "yuppie" generation. Articles on new dinosaur extinction theories and fossil discoveries are frequently featured in major national magazines. And a steady stream of new adult-level dinosaur books continues to be issued by humanistic publishers each year. Even adults are fascinated by these great beasts--and likewise the history and controversy surrounding them. WHAT SPARKED ALL THIS INTEREST? Part of the craze has evidently developed in the wake of a series of high-tech dinosaur exhibits currently touring America. Featured at museums and even a major Las Vegas hotel, these large dinosaurs (half-scale) actually move and growl. These traveling "animated" dinosaurs are attracting huge crowds and have broken long-standing attendance records for several museums. The current dinosaur fad is, also, undoubtedly due to: (a) dramatic new fossil discoveries; (b) extensive media attention focused on the latest extinction theories; © the widely publicized building of an 18-foot mechanical, flying replica of the great pterodactyl, Quetzalcoatlus northropi (now featured in an IMAX-movie shown in museum theaters throughout North America and a PBS-TV documentary). WHERE IS THE DANGER IN THIS DINOSAUR-MANIA? Dinosaurs are being used on a monumental scale to promote evolution. Parents are often amazed at how much even kindergartners know about them. Portrayed as strange, fierce-looking creatures, they are effectively used to indoctrinate millions of children with false evolutionary concepts, such as the following: Dinosaurs and many other animals are pre-historic. Most of the earth's history took place long before the Bible or any other book was written and long before any man existed. It is a scientific fact that the earth is exceedingly old--perhaps 5 billion years. Evolution is a fact. God did not create the world as portrayed in the Bible. There once was a time when the land was inhabited only by reptiles--the Great Age of the Dinosaurs. Dinosaurs and other animals evolved into completely different kinds of creatures. Every creature evolved from lower forms of life, even man. Man is just an animal--a highly-evolved primate. PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND DINOSAURS Public-school teachers are generally encouraged to use dinosaurs to promote learning skills. Educational supply stores are usually well-stocked with such supplies used in teaching diverse subjects--from English and reading to arithmetic and history--not to mention science. And all along the way, dinosaurs are related to evolutionary concepts that lead children away from the truth revealed by God in His word. This evolutionary indoctrination is thorough and frequently reinforced. After years of exposure, beliefs become firmly established in people's minds. Eventually, for most, even to look at a dinosaur automatically brings forth mental images of evolution--ideas effectively re-emphasized in the home by hours of PBS-TV, beautiful National Geographic specials and evolutionary books and articles. MORE DECEPTION IS ON THE WAY To help counteract the efforts of creationists, various leading evolutionists have come to the conclusion that not enough evolution is being taught. They are actively engaged in making sure that evolution is stressed even more in schools, starting even at the pre-school level! USING DINOSAURS TO TEACH ABOUT CREATION The current dinosaur craze can either do great harm, or it can be used for significant good. The exciting thing is that when it comes to dinosaurs, the facts are on the side of a creationist interpretation--not evolution. Here are some dinosaur facts that can be used to stimulate children's interest in the true nature of science while presenting dinosaurs in a Biblical framework of history. The Wrong-Headed Dinosaur. How do scientists know anything about dinosaurs? Apart from the Bible, the only information on dinosaurs comes from fossils--parts of dead plants and animals that have been turned into rock. Examples of dinosaur fossils include bones, teeth, claws, spikes, horns, bony plates, eggs (sometimes with unborn babies), gizzard's stones (gastroliths), dung (coprolites), footprints, imprints of skin (very rare), and stomach contents (very rare). Fossils are like pieces of a puzzle. No one knows how the living animal actually looked, nor can they do more than guess about the animal's behavior. This is why our concepts about dinosaurs continually change. A good example is the great Brontosaurus, probably the best known of the dinosaurs. Millions of people have seen it in books and advertising; however, the Brontosaurus never existed! Its fossils were discovered with the head missing. To complete the skeleton, the scientist attached a skull found 3-4 miles away, but did not reveal this fact. Recently it was discovered that the body skeleton belonged to a Diplodocus and the skull was from an Apatosaurus. Dinosaurs and the Bible. Many are surprised to find that dinosaur-like creatures are mentioned in the Bible. Job chapter 40 gives us a good description of one of these animals. The book of Job is very old, probably written around 2,000 years before Jesus was born or soon after the Flood. Here God describes the greatest of land animals, an animal the Bible calls "behemoth," meaning "gigantic beast." This Biblical description clearly fits the description of a large saurapod such as Diplodocus or Apatosaurus. Note the following points mentioned there; the behemoth: Was a large, grass eater Had great muscles and extremely strong bones Was not afraid of anything Had a tail so large it was compared to a large cedar tree Rests in marshes--flooding rivers do not alarm it Cannot be trapped or domesticated Before the wide-spread interest in the dinosaurs, early students of the Bible tried to identify the behemoth of Job based on contemporary experience. The best candidates were the elephant or hippopotamus, both of which fail the description--especially the tail test. Other samples of how dinosaur facts can be used to honor the Creator include the presence of dinosaur fossils in hardened mud (sedimentary rocks) and the fact that fossil skeletons result from rapid burial (such as the Flood), not by slowly being covered by sediments over many years. Another area of interest to both children and adults is in the wide-spread tales of dinosaur-like creatures (so-called "dragons") preserved in the legends of many ancient cultures. There have even been occasional encounters with dinosaur-like creatures reported in modern times. A CALL TO ACTION Every Christian is in a position to help children escape this great dinosaur deception. Here is a partial list of actions available: BOOKS, MOVIES, VIDEOS, AUDIO TAPES, ACTIVITY BOOKS. Provide children with dinosaur materials that tell the truth about dinosaurs and history--not the distorted evolutionary beliefs of secular humanists. Use children's natural fascination with dinosaurs to turn them toward their Creator! STORYTIME. Incorporate dinosaurs into your story-telling about Creation, Noah and the Ark, etc. SCHOOL. Christian teachers can incorporate dinosaurs into their curriculum to teach students about Creation, the Fall, the Flood, geology and the environment. LIBRARIES. Donate creationist books to libraries. Start with Christian school libraries and churches first, since they are the first responsibility of Christians. SUNDAY SCHOOL AND VACATION BIBLE SCHOOL. The one place most children never hear about dinosaurs is in church. Shouldn't this be the first place to teach young people about creationism and the Bible--and how dinosaurs fit into all this? SPECIAL MEETINGS. An evening meeting, a week-long series, or a special "Dinosaur Night" for families--all have proven effective and have gotten great attendance. Many creationist speakers are happy to provide assistance. BOOKSTORES. Encourage your local Christian bookstore to carry Christian materials on dinosaurs, especially during the current dinosaur fad, as well as other creation-oriented books and audiovisuals. CONCLUSION ============================================ Creationists are maniacs ":mad: "

well i just found this software which models evolution , its called avida and its free for download at http://dllab.caltech.edu/avida/ i dont know much about it or how to use it hey and what is difference between genometype and lineage?

what is abiogenesis?

well i found this alternate theory which modifies evolution and its called panspermia , well i havent read much abt it but just read it and tell , i think this theory is not explaining the mechanisms of evolution . http://www.panspermia.org/

Well there is an imaginary hexapod vertebrate on national geogrophic channel's Extraterristial programe.. see it http://www.nationalgeographic.com/channel/extraterrestrial/index.html look whole site u will find it

but look at this ... The Benzar studies. In the early 1960s, *Benzar discovered a chemical which could incredibly increase the number of mutations. This was a great breakthrough in science for, henceforth, the data could be collected much more rapidly and thoroughly. As a result, they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful! true of massive mutation, ie lots happening at once. Dak you told that to be true , this means all mutations are harmful ? and evolution cannot happen?

MUTATIONS - 2 Here is more scientific evidence clearly showing that mutations cannot produce evolutionary change. This is science vs. evolution—a Creation-Evolution Encyclopedia, brought to you by Creation Science Facts. CONTENTS: MUTATIONS - 2 The One "Beneficial" Mutation - One mutation which is touted as helpful, but which is actually as deadly as the rest Mutation Research - It is the in-depth mutation research, carried on for most of this century, which has settled the matter Mammoth Mutation Theory - As all the other theories shatter, in desperation a really wayout theory is grasped Conclusion - Mutations cannot possibly produce evolutionary change Page numbers without book references refer to the book, MUTATIONS, from which these facts are summarized. An asterisk ( * ) by a name indicates that person is not known to be a creationist. Of over 4,000 quotations in the set of books this Encyclopedia is based on (see BOOKSTORE), only 164 statements are by creationists. THE ONE BENEFICIAL MUTATION Yes, evolutionists have one beneficial mutation that they can cite—as proof that positive, helpful mutations do occasionally occur. It is sickle-cell anemia, which is a mutation which occurred in someone in Africa centuries ago. Was that mutation beneficial? Far from it; it damaged the red blood cells so they became quarter-moon shaped instead of round. This produced a special type of anemia. The person with sickle-cell anemia cannot properly absorb food and oxygen. How then can anyone call that mutation beneficial? Well, the evolutionists do it—on the basis of the fact that people with sickle-cell anemia are less likely to contract malaria from mosquitoes! Really now, that is begging the question! If I had bulbar polio, I would be less likely to be killed in an auto accident—because I would be paralyzed on a bed and less likely to be riding in a car. But one would not say that polio was, for that reason, beneficial! In return for the advantage of being 25 percent less likely to contract malaria, 25 percent of the children of people, in Africa, with sickle-cell anemia—will die! What advantage is that?—pp. 21, 23. MUTATION RESEARCH As mentioned earlier, researchers spent most of this century trying to get mutations to produce new species. The problem, of course, was the fact that they are so rare.—p. 23. The new discovery. But a major breakthrough came in 1928, when *Muller discovered that X rays could speed up mutations. Whereas, in nature, there might be one mutation, now the number could be increased a millionfold—and focused on just one organism! How wonderful, the evolutionists thought! Now we shall be able to create new species! Instead, they damaged, mutilated, and killed experimental insects, animals, and birds for decades—without accomplishing anything worthwhile.—pp. 23-24. The great fruit fly experiment. The humble fruit fly was selected as the best single creature to torture with radiation. The reason was its extremely short reproductive cycle. A new generation of fruit flies occurs every few days. In addition, the creature is large enough that it can be seen far easier than worms or microbes. Since the late 1920s, hundreds of thousands of generations of fruit flies have been irradiated with X rays and nuclear radiation. —Yet in all that time, two facts have emerged: (1) They have been damaged, not helped. (2) No new species have been produced. The fruit flies have remained fruit flies—in spite of experiencing countless millions of mutations.—pp. 24-25. Resistant strains. It has been said, by evolutionists, that "resistant strains" of bacteria are the result of mutations. These are bacteria which are more resistant to the wonder drugs. Yet the truth is that every species has a variational range of traits. Some of those bacteria could resist the drugs while others could not. When the drugs were applied, the nonresistant strains died off, and the resistant strains survived. What the physicians were doing, by administering drugs, was to breed new, stronger strains of bacteria! Mutations had nothing to do with the process.—pp. 25-26. The Benzar studies. In the early 1960s, *Benzar discovered a chemical which could incredibly increase the number of mutations. This was a great breakthrough in science for, henceforth, the data could be collected much more rapidly and thoroughly. As a result, they were soon able to report that there was no longer any uncertainty: Mutations were not 99 percent harmful; they were 100 percent harmful! In addition, they discovered that the slightest mutational change in the DNA ruins the code entirely. Even the simplest organism is damaged when its DNA is struck by a mutation.—p. 26. MAMMOTH MUTATION THEORY We noted earlier that some evolutionists adhered to the natural selection, as the cause of cross-species changes. Later, when mutations were discovered and the inadequacies in natural selection were realized, many turned to mutations as the solution. But, later still, several prominent evolutionists turned to a new variation on the mutation theory: They came up with the "hopeful monster" theory. This is the idea that, once every 50,000 years or so, a gigantic set of helpful, positive mutations occurs all at once: a lizard lays an egg and a beaver hatches from it! Flaws in the theory. Here are some of the reasons why this mutation theory is desperately impossible: 1 - It never happens. We never see the theory in action.—p. 27. 2 - Two required. Every time a hopeful monster is produced, two would have to come into being within a few miles of each other: a male and female. Yet, according to *Gould, this rare event only happens once every 50,000 years.—p. 27. 3 - Massive mutations required. Multi-billion mutations would suddenly have to occur each time a hopeful monster was produced.—pp. 26-27. 4 - All positive. Mutations are always negative and, generally, lethal; but these would have to be all positive.—p. 27. 5 - All dovetailed and according to plan. All these mutations would have to fit perfectly together in a harmonious whole: body organs, bones, head, feet, DNA, and all the rest.—p. 29. 6 - It is a mathematical impossibility. It sure is.—p. 27. 7 - Not frequent enough. *Gould set the hopeful monsters 50,000 years apart, to help cover over the fact that they are not occurring today. But one new species every 50,000 years would only yield 20 new species every million years! Yet there are immense numbers of species in the world right now.—pp. 26-27, 29. CONCLUSION Evolution cannot succeed without mutations, and evolution cannot succeed with them. Evolution is an impossibility. Only God can make plants and animals. No one else can, and senseless, random, harmful mutations cannot do it either. Give God your life, and He will give you a happier life than you could otherwise have. FOR MORE INFORMATION: Forward to the next topic in this series: SCIENTISTS SPEAK ABOUT MUTATIONS. TOP ENCYCLOPEDIA INDEX PATHLIGHTS HOME * BOOKSTORE * TRANSLATOR PATHLIGHTS PO Box 300 Altamont, TN 37301 IMPORTANT! For many more facts against EVOLUTION— Visit our Sister Website: http://evolution-facts.org

well thanks SKYE for telling me to search for term 'beneficial mutations' . now i realy think that evolution is true