Renewable Revolution

In regard to GAPS in the Theory of Evolution, even Chopra says that the Purpose preceded the Process    instead of the other way around     like the Darwin true believers claim.

I dislike the way Chopra puts molecular machines in quotes as if the AREN'T real machines. They ARE machines and they are FAR MORE EFFICIENT thermodynamically than anything Homo SAP has invented. It is an established scientific mathematical factorial statistical fact that cell machinery has NOT HAD ENOUGH TIME through random mutations to get all these molecular machines to evolve AND work in concert for maintaining and reproducing life. 12 billion years is not enough for the cell machinery. I've brought that here various times with scholarly references and I get studiously ignored.  Good luck getting people here to question evolution or agree there are ANY gaps in that fairy tale.

You know that fruit fly with the TWO PAIRS of wings celebrated as "proof" of evolution? Did you know the extra pair of perfectly formed wings (allegedly a "positive" mutation like those necessary to establish some credibility to the Darwinian claim that natural selection produces SUPERIOR species rather than winnow OUT constantly degrading DNA) HAVE NO FLIGHT MUSCLES? That's right. They don't work. All the energy used to make them was WASTED and they represent an evolutionary DEAD END.

Behold, the evolutionary DEAD END paraded as "proof" of "evolution". 

In molecular biology, that four winged fruit fly is an ICON of EVOLUTION! It's SO PURTY that they paraded it all over the place!   

The mutations needed for macroevolution have never been observed. No random mutations that could represent the mutations required by Neo-Darwinian Theory that have been examined on the molecular level have added any information. The question I address is: Are the mutations that have been observed the kind the theory needs for support? The answer turns out to be NO! ¹⁶

Experiments on fruit flies:

 As long as a mutation does not change the morphology—that is, the shape—of an organism, it cannot be the raw material of evolution. One of the living things in which morphological mutations have been most intensively studied is the fruit fly (Drosophila melanogaster). In one of the many mutations Drosophila was subjected to, the two-winged fruit fly developed a second pair of wings. Ever since 1978 this four-winged fruit fly has gained great popularity in textbooks and other evolutionist publications.

However, one point that evolutionist publications hardly ever mention is that the extra wings possess no flight muscles.  These fruit flies are therefore deformed, since these wings represent a serious obstacle to flight.

They also have difficulties in mating.  :emthdown: They are unable to survive in the wild.  :emthdown: In his important book Icons of Evolution, the American biologist Jonathan Wells studies the four-winged fruit fly, together with other classic Darwinist propaganda tools, and explains in great detail why this example does not constitute evidence for evolution.

The NAS's Errors Regarding Mutations

 The National Academy of Sciences suggests that mutations provide the necessary genetic variation for evolution, and refers to them as follows: "They may or may not equip the organism with better means for surviving in its environment." (Science and Creationism, p. 10). In fact, however, contrary to what the NAS authors claim, mutations do not lead to beneficial characteristics, and all experiments and observations on this subject have confirmed this fact

.

http://m.harunyahya.com/tr/Books/973/The-Errors-The-American-National-Academy-Of-Sciences/chapter/3216/The-nass-errors-regarding-mutations