science3

Studies of mutations are extremely problematic for
evolutionists. Not only have they failed in over 100 years to
show examples of new coherent information being added
which might lead to a new or improved organism, they are
usually neutral or harmless if small, but if big enough to
make a difference (which they would have to be for evolution
to occur) they are harmful. After all, the word "mutant" usually
conjures up pictures of something grotesque! This is one of
the best kept secrets of modern biology � random DNA
mutations are the only way that evolution can have occurred
� but when studied, they prove to be neutral or harmful, and
there is no other mechanism.

This mechanism for evolution demonstrably does not work, Given that this is true, and it can be
confirmed by any internet search on key words such as DNA mutation, deletion, insertion, duplication
or translocation, it appears that when science is applied to evolution's central mechanism, it
completely fails to offer any support. Mathematical modelling of the likelihood of beneficial DNA
changes leading to even a single small protein are beyond human comprehension on their vastness.
Whatever the belief that random DNA changes led to all the complex life forms we see today is, it is
not observational or repeatable science. Check it out. Ask any evolutionist if they can give a single
example of a random DNA change which led to an increase in information or coded to produce a
new useful structure which was not already present in the gene pool of that plant or animal. Likely
replies are:-

1) don't be stupid, there is TONS of evidence

2) what about sickle cell anaemia, for a start?

3) isn't antibiotic resistance an example of evolution in action with beneficial mutations?