Jump to content
Islamic Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Absolute truth

Mutations, Mechanism Of Evolution /darwinism ?!

Recommended Posts

Deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is a molecule encoding the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of all known living organisms and many viruses. Along with RNA and proteins, DNA is one of the three major macromolecules that are essential for all known forms of life. Genetic information is encoded as a sequence of nucleotides (guanine, adenine, thymine, and cytosine) recorded using the letters G, A, T, and C. Most DNA molecules are double-stranded helices, consisting of two long polymers of simple units called nucleotides, molecules with backbones made of alternating sugars (deoxyribose) and phosphate groups (related to phosphoric acid), with the nucleobases (G, A, T, C) attached to the sugars. During protein synthesis, DNA is transcribed into RNA and then translated to produce proteins.

But an error in a single letter in that sequence may damage the
entire structure. The leukemia observed in children appears because one
of the letters in the DNA is incorrect.

The reason for diseases such as cancer appearing or subsequent
generations being deformed as a result of the radiation leakage in
Chernobyl of the atom bomb dropped over Hiroshima is harmful effects of
this kind caused by mutations in people’s bodies.


What are mutations ?

A gene mutation is defined as an alteration in the sequence ofnucleotides in DNA. This change can affect a single nucleotide pair orlarger gene segments of a chromosome. DNA consists of a polymer of

nucleotides joined together. Altering nucleotide sequences most often results in nonfunctioning proteins. Mutations cause changes in the genetic code that lead to genetic variation and the potential to develop disease.
Types of mutations:below

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
Mechanism of evolution ?
The reasons why mutations cannot support evolutionist claims may be summarized under these main headings:      

1. Mutations are mostly harmful.

Since they occur at random, they always damage living things. Logically, any unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will damage it, rather than causing it to develop.

Dr. Grassé says that in the case of evolution, the problem is that "some contemporary biologists, as soon as they observe a mutation, talk about evolution." In his view, this opinion does not agree with the facts because "no matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution."


Imagine a computer programmer engaged in writing a software when on computer and a book falls on his keyboard, striking a few keys and inserting random letters and numbers into the text. A mutation is something like this. Just as such an accident would contribute nothing to the computer program—in fact, it would ruin it—so mutations vandalize the genetic code.

To believe that they produced the extraordinarily complex genetic codes of the millions of different species is like believing that books falling randomly onto a computer keyboard have written millions of encyclopedias!


In Natural Limits to Biological Change, Lester and Bohlin write that "mutations are mistakes, errors in the precise machinery of DNA replication" which means "mutations, genetic variation, and recombination by themselves will not generate major evolutionary change."

    "Mutations will be capable only of modifying what already exists, usually in a meaningless or deleterious way. That is not to say that beneficial mutation is prohibited; unexpected maybe, but not impossible. A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute more offspring to future generations than do those creatures that lack the mutation. . . But these mutations have nothing to do with changing one kind of organism into another. . .

    In this regard, Darwin called attention to the wingless beetles of Madeira. For a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage. Mutations causing the loss of flight are definitely
beneficial. Similar would be the case of sightless cavefish. Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and a creature that lives in total darkness would benefit from mutations reducing their vulnerability.
While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice that they always involve loss, never gain. One never observes wings or eyes being produced in species that did not previously possess them.


Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations.

The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains:

'Most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.'

The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver said the following about a report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, set up to examine the mutations arising as a result of nuclear weapons in the wake of the Second World War:

'Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - result from mutations, practically all of which are harmful?'

These photographs show some of the damaging effects of mutation on the human body.

A process that cripples individuals or leaves them ill cannot, of course, give rise to any progress.

In a scientific paper, David Demick, an American pathologist, wrote this to say about mutations:

'Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been
catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations.

With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.'(David Demick, "The Blind Gunman," Impact, No. 308, February 1999)

DNA Repair

Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell that prevent genetic errors arising.

God has designed a number of DNA repair systems and proofreaders (enzymes), each to take on different repair problems. For example, there are enzymes involved with mismatch excision repair (MMR) that recognize wrongly paired bases, and nucleotide excision repair (NER), which is a universal "cut and patch" repair mechanism. NER operates to remove the mistake — called a lesion — and fill in the gap with new DNA. One may liken this to a dentist drilling out decay and replacing the hole with a filling (the "filling" in DNA repair is a functional nucleotide). There are also tiny molecular motors (see "Origins Issues," Acts & Facts, April 2004) called helicases (e.g., DnaB helicase and other multimeric motors) that literally unwind DNA from the normal double-stranded state into two single strands. Helicases accomplish this by rapidly breaking
hydrogen bonds between the nucleotides (the "ladder rungs" portion of the molecule) in a manner somewhat like the way inchworms move. Other specially designed enzymes must immediately keep the two single strands apart once they are separated. From there, efficient repair of the DNA continues. Occasionally this amazing repair mechanism fails — as all of our systems eventually do — and a permanent alteration or change in that portion of the DNA results. This is called a mutation. Of course, mutations in critical areas can be deadly to an organism.(Sherwin, F. 2004. Mending Mistakes—The Amazing Ability of Repair. Acts & Facts. 33 (6).)

Pierre Paul Grassé, who spent 30 years as professor of evolution at the Sorbonne, wrote this on the subject:

'The probability of dust carried by the wind reproducing Dürer’s “Melancholia” is less infinitesimal than the probability of copy errors in the DNA molecules leading to the formation of the eye.'

2. No new genetic information can be added to DNA as a result of mutation.

The components of the genetic information are removed and dismantled, damaged or carried to other locations in the DNA. Yet mutations can never cause a living thing to acquire a new organ or attribute.

It is therefore impossible for a brand new organ or characteristic that did not exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations. Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism.

3. For a mutation to be transmitted to a subsequent generation, it must take place in the reproductive germ cells or their precursors.

No change arising in any other cell of the body can be passed along to later generations. For example, an embryo's eye may depart from its original form by being subjected to radiation and other similar effects, but this mutation will not manifest itself in subsequent generations.


4. The Infinite Amount of Time Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations

Even if we assume that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs and structures requiring more than one mutation to occur at the same time, mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for Darwinists.

The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question.

He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years. (Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 81)



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Types of mutations:

Point Mutations(Single base substitutions)

The most common type of gene mutation. this type of mutation changes a single nucleotide base pair. Point mutations , if occured in protein regions, can be categorized into three types:

  • Silent Mutation: Although a change in the DNA sequence occurs, this type of mutation does not change the protein that is to be produced. This is because multiple genetic codons can encode for the same amino acid. Amino acids are coded for by three nucleotide sets called codons. For example, the amino acid arginine is coded for by several DNA codons including CGT, CGC, CGA, and CGG (A = adenine, T = thymine, G = guanine and C = cytosine). If the DNA sequence CGC is changed to CGA, the amino acid arginine will still be produced.

  • Missense Mutation: This type of mutation alters the nucleotide sequence so that a different amino acid is produced. This change alters the resulting protein. The change may not have much effect on the protein, may be beneficial to protein function, or may be dangerous. Using our previous example, if the codon for arginine CGC is changed to GGC, the amino acid glycine will be produced instead of arginine. This is what happens in sickle cell anaemia.



  • Nonsense Mutation: This type of mutation alters the nucleotide sequence so that a stop codon is coded for in place of an amino acid. A stop codon signals the end of the translation process and stops protein production. If this process is ended too soon, the amino acid sequence is cut short and the resulting protein is most always nonfunctional. Nonsense mutations occur in between 15% to 30% of all inherited diseases including cystic fibrosis, haemophilia, retinitis pigmentosa and duchenne muscular dystrophy.



Insertions and deletions

Frameshift mutation, in the second codon the deletion of 'c' leads to a
shift in reading frame and multiple amino acid substitutions in the
subsequent protein.

Extra base pairs may be added or deleted from the DNA of a gene. The number of bases can range from a few to thousands. Insertions and deletions of one or two bases or multiples of one or two cause frameshifts (shift the reading frame). These can have devastating effects because the mRNA is translated in new groups of three nucleotides and the protein being produced may be useless.

Insertions and deletions of 3 or multiples of three bases may be less serious because they preserve the open reading frame. However, a number of trinucleotide repeat diseases exist including Huntingtons disease and fragile X syndrome.

Chromosomal mutations

A chromosome mutation is any change in the structure or arrangement of the chromosomes. Mutations to chromosomes happen most frequently during the crossing over stage of meiosis.
There are many different types of mutation that can change the chromosome structure resulting in detrimental changes to the genotype and phenotype of the organism. Chromosomal mutations effecting essential parts of the DNA can result in the abortion of the foetus before birth.

  • Translocations
    - Translocations are the transfer of a piece of one chromosome to a non-homologous chromosome. They are often reciprocal, with the two chromosomes swapping segments with each other.
    In most cases of chronic myelogenous leukaemia (CML), the leukaemic cells share a chromosomal abnormality known as Philadelphia chromosome.
    This abnormality is the result of a reciprocal translocation between chromosomes 9 and 22. An abnormal hybrid gene is created leading to the production of a novel protein that is not normally found in the cell. This protein prevents normal growth and development, leading to leukaemia.

  • Inversion
    - A region of DNA on the chromosome can flip its orientation with respect to the rest of the chromosome.

  • Deletions
    - A large section of a chromosome can be deleted resulting in the loss of a number of genes.

  • Duplications
    - In this mutation, some genes are duplicated and displayed twice on the same chromosome.

  • Chromosome non-disjunction
    - During cell division, the chromosomes fail to successfully separate to opposite poles, resulting in one of the daughter cells having an extra chromosome and the other daughter cell lacking one.
    If this non-disjunction occurs in chromosome 21 of a human egg cell, a condition called Downs syndrome (DS) occurs. A person suffering with DS has 47 chromosomes in every cell instead of the normal 46. They suffer from heart defects, mental retardation and stunted growth. However, it must be pointed out that the distributions of IQs of people with DS overlaps considerably with the IQ distribution of 'normal' (non-DS) population, mainly due to changes in education policy in the last 30 years.



Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites


DNA mutations can be synonymous (blue star), meaning that they have no effect on the sequence of the protein that the gene encodes, or they can be non-synonymous (red star), indicating that they alter at least one amino acid.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Similar Content

    • By Absolute truth
      This topic is for miscellaneous darwinism-related information in sha Allah..
      Don't you understand how microbes turned to humans ???!!!!
      You need to educate yourself on biology...

      Wait !


      Philip Ball’s opinion piece in this week’s Nature, the most popular science magazine in the world, is news not because he stated that we don’t fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level, but because he urged his fellow evolutionists to admit it. On this 60th anniversary of the discovery of the DNA double helix, Ball reviews a few of the recent findings that have rebuked the evolution narrative that random mutations created the biological world.
      But it’s a Fact Anyway ?!
    • By Saracen21stC
      By Tia Ghose, LiveScience Staff Writer | LiveScience.com

      Neanderthals Doomed by Vision-Centered Brains
      Neanderthals' keen vision may explain why they couldn't cope with environmental change and died out, despite having the same sized brains as modern humans, new research suggests.
      The findings, published today (March 12) in the journal Proceedings of the Royal Society B, suggest that Neanderthals developed massive visual regions in their brains to compensate for Europe's low light levels. That, however, reduced the brain space available for social cognition.
      "We have a social brain, whereas Neanderthals appear to have a visual brain," said Clive Gamble, an archaeologist at the University of Southampton, who was not involved in the study.
      As a result, the extinct hominids had smaller social and trading networks to rely on when conditions got tough. That may have caused Neanderthals to die off around 35,000 years ago.
      Brain size riddle
      Just how smart Neanderthals were has been a long-standing debate.
      "Either they get regarded as lumbering brutes, or the other side says, 'No, they weren't that stupid. They had enormous brains, so they must have been as smart as we are,'" said study co-author Robin Dunbar, an evolutionary psychologist at the University of Oxford.
      To help solve the riddle, Dunbar and his colleagues looked at 13 Neanderthal skull fossils dating from 25,000 to 75,000 years ago and compared them with 32 anatomically modern human skeletons. The researchers noticed that some of the Neanderthal fossils had much larger eye sockets, and thus eyes, than do modern humans. [10 Odd Facts About the Brain]
      Low lighting
      The team concluded that Neanderthals used their oversized eyes to survive in the lower-light levels in Europe, where the northern latitude means fewer of the sun's rays hit the Earth. (Modern humans also tend to have slightly bigger eyes and visual systems at higher latitudes than those living in lower latitudes, where light levels are higher.) The researchers hypothesized that Neanderthals must, therefore, also have had large brain regions devoted to visual processing.
      And in fact, Neanderthal skulls suggest that the extinct hominids had elongated regions in the back of their brains, called the "Neanderthal bun," where the visual cortex lies.
      "It looks like a Victorian lady's head," Dunbar told LiveScience.
      Anatomically modern humans, meanwhile, evolved in Africa, where the bright light required no extra visual processing, leaving humans free to evolve larger frontal lobes.
      By calculating how much brain space was needed for other tasks, the team concluded that Neanderthals had relatively less space for the frontal lobe, a brain region that controls social thinkingand cultural transmission.
      Isolated and dying
      The findings explain why Neanderthals didn't ornament themselves or make art, Gamble told LiveScience.
      These results may also help explain the Neanderthals' extinction, Dunbar said.
      Smaller social brain regions meant smaller social networks. In fact, artifacts from Neanderthal sites suggest they had just a 30-mile (48.3 kilometers) trading radius, while human trade networks at the time could span 200 miles (321.9 km), Dunbar said.
      With competition from humans, a bitter ice age and tiny trading networks, the Neanderthals probably couldn't access resources from better climates, which they needed in order survive, he said.
    • By Absolute truth
      "... the evidence supporting descent with modification ... is both overwhelming and compelling."
      Many Darwinists wonder how we could possibly deny the 'fact of evolution'. After all, we can actually observe changes in nature, such as bacteria 'evolving' to become resistant to antibiotics. How can the history-denying people possibly not see this? The only explanation, Darwinists say, is that we are willingly ignorant of the truth.

      However, we do not deny variation. Not even the most fundamental die-hard scientist would ever deny that change occurs! Presenting variations, such as bacterial resistance, with the view that we deny them is a misrepresentation of our position.

      A net gain of new genetic information cannot arise by recombination of genes in the same way that rearranging a small book will not result in the British library. Theoretically, another small book with new information may arise, but there is no net gain.

      Define evolution !

      Evolutionists usually define their theory as 'change over time', 'descent with modification', or 'the change of allele frequencies of a population over time'. But these definitions are oversimplified.
      The theory of Evolution (the idea that all life has descended from a common ancestor) requires a net gain in new genetic information for it to occur. E.g., for a Lego house to change into a skyscraper, we must add the instructions for making steel, bricks, foundations etc. to the manual of the Lego house. These instructions do not already exist in the manual and cannot come about by rearranging the information already inside the manual.

      In much the same way, we must add the 'instructions' which make blood, limbs, organs etc. to the genome of our supposed microbe-like common ancestor. These instructions must be
      entirely new — they cannot come about by a rearrangement of pre-existing DNA, since the 500,000 DNA 'letters' of our common ancestor must change to the three billion 'letters' of humans.

      The Real Definition according to neo-darwinism:

      'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information'.

      'Change over time', 'descent with modification', and 'a change in the allele frequencies of a population over time' are too ambiguous and do not actually explain how all life may have evolved from a common ancestor.

      So why does this matter?

      Fallacy of equivocation:

      Evolutionists use undeniable examples of 'change over time' (variation) to prove 'the idea that all life has descended from a single common ancestor over millions of years via a net gain in new genetic information' (microbe-like-to-man evolution).

      This inexcusable logic is called equivocation or the bait-and-switch fallacy, and occurs when someone changes the definition of a word halfway through an argument.
      The supposed Evidence for Evolution is full of examples of 'change over time' as evidence for microbes-to-man evolution.

      When an evolutionist claims that evolution is a fact, as almost all do, ask him what he means by the word 'evolution' and what facts he has to support this. No doubt 'evolution' will mean 'change over time' and the facts supporting it are simply examples of change over time, such as bacterial resistance (an example which everyone entirely agree with).

      To sum it all up, evolutionists provide examples of simple variation (where no new genetic information is added) to prove microbes-to-man evolution (where a net gain in new genetic information is required).
      This is illogical to say the least.
      One of two or more genes that may occur alternatively at a given site (locus) on a chromosome (gene version).
    • By Absolute truth
      A) Karyotype
      According to darwinism, human has a microbe-like grandfather, It kept reproducing till we found an imaginary common ancestor for human and chimp.
      This tale was confronted by the fact that human has 46 chromosomes while apes have 48 !
      Looks more or less similar ?!
      Let's have a look at creatures that have the same number of chromosomes-just like human !
      - Black rat (Rattus rattus) , but not all of them have 46

      - Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)

      - Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)

      - Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)

      - Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)

      - Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi)

      - Beach vole (Microtus breweri)

      - Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)

      - Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus/Madoqua kirkii )

      - Grey/common vole (Microtus arvalis)

      - Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)

      - Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)

      - Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)

      - Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)

      Sable antelope  (Kafue, Zambia)
      On the other hand these species also have 48 chromosomes, just like chimpanzee.
      - European hare/jackrabbit (Lepus europeus)




      It's obvious that none is a supposed relative neither for human nor chimpanzee !
      In fact, the number of chromosomes doesn't hold much importance. What really counts is the genetic information itself.