MUTATIONS, and natural selection are touted to be the primary requirement for the imagined evolutionary progress of all life on earth.  But when real scientists are writing about evidence-based, factual observations, mutations are at best neutral, but mutations are mostly bad,……..very bad.

Yet knowing this to be true, scientists remain silent when evolutionists claim bazillion beneficial mutations, over millions and millions of years, acting on initially simple life forms that (miraculously appear from non-life) were the primary mechanisms that transformed bacteria into biologists, proto-life to physicians, jelly-fish to jesters, crabs to criminals.  

Though I am obviously poking at gullible evolutionists, give some time to a serious examination of their claims, because you too will start to realize how all over the map their scenarios are.  Read their just-so stories over the last century, over the last decade and even the current ones,  and from a diversity of writers.  You will see that the ONLY constant is that evolution happened.

The details are limited only by the writers and artists imaginations.

Why then do we accept these pronouncements as truth?  Which version, which university, which decade?

We would never accept such shabby lack of academic standards for the cars we drive, the planes we fly, the food we eat, the medicines we ingest.  Yet we allow shabby ‘scholarship’ like this to be the ruling paradigm over the entire education framework.  This is not worthy of the unquestioning obeisance  demanded, and exists for the sole purpose of trying to rob the Lord God the praise and glory due to Him, our mighty Creator.

In the article excerpts below, the  Red, bold highlight is mine. Gerda

Sharon Kirkey | December 23, 2015 |    THREE-PARENT BABIES:        “When Britain’s House of Lords gave doctors its blessing this year to proceed with the seemingly harmless-sounding “mitochondrial replacement therapy,” the country’s tabloids went to work: “Three-parent babies risk future of human race,” screamed the breathless Daily Mail.

Now, with the first of those babies expected early in 2016 doctors and ethicists are awaiting the births with mixed excitement and dread.

The procedure, which is illegal in Canada, involves essentially swapping genetic material between two women’s eggs.

Mitochondria work like miniature power plants, supplying energy to virtually every cell in the body, except red blood cells. When the genes in mitochondria contain mutations, they can cause devastating, often fatal, diseases, including brain disorders, diseased heart muscles, strokes, seizures, dementia, deafness and blindness.

 Now, researchers have developed a way to extract the nucleus from the egg of a woman with diseased mitochondria, and transfer it to a donated and “enucleated” egg of one with normal mitochondria.

The “new” egg contains the nuclear DNA of the “social” mother — the woman who will parent the child — and the mitochondrial DNA of the egg donor. The egg is then fertilized in a lab with the male partner’s sperm via IVF, and the resulting embryo transferred to the mother’s uterus.

Since most DNA is packaged into chromosomes within the nucleus, the mother and father provide 99.9 per cent of the total genetic material. The remainder — 0.1 per cent — comes from the egg donor. (Mitochondrial DNA is passed down only through females. Women can be carriers, but not discover the problem until they give birth.)

While the mitochondrial DNA contribution is exceedingly small, “it’s the first time in human history that we’re altering the genome,” says Dr. Neal Mahutte, president of the Canadian Fertility and Andrology Society. “I think the families who suffer from these diseases make a very compelling case that it’s worth trying under an appropriately supervised system.”

Canada’s Assisted Human Reproduction Act says that no person shall knowingly “alter the genome of a cell of a human being or in vitro embryo such that the alteration is capable of being transmitted to descendants.”

Dalhousie University bioethicist Francoise Baylis, who doesn’t think there’s a compelling case for mitochondrial replacement, questions the “time, talent and energy” being spent on helping relatively few women have genetically linked children, when there are other ways of having a family, including adoption, or standard IVF using a donor egg.

 

Others worry the procedure could lead society down a path to genetic enhancement — tinkering with the genome in other ways to select for desirable traits.

Baylis says science is nowhere near being able to select for something as complex as, say, memory. Still, she asks, “will we, as a species, try? Will we forge ahead? Might we eventually succeed? I think so.”

 

Advertisements