Page 274 - If Darwin Had Known about DNA

Harun Yahya

272

become the rule: events with an infinitesimal probability could not fail to
occur. . . There is no law against daydreaming, but science must not in-
dulge in it. 228 .

In addition, the mutations that they allege increased the informa-
tion in DNA over the course of time, leading to variation, is no solution
to the predicament in which Darwinists find themselves. Mutations are
harmful breaks and changes of place of genes in the living DNA mole-
cule, resulting from radiation or chemical effects. Since mutations dam-
age the nucleotides or cause them to change places, they generally lead

to damage too great for the cell to repair. For example, X-rays penetrate
deeply in the body and cause major DNA damage. When DNA starts to
be wrongly replicated, such faulty replication can manifest itself in the
body as cancer. The mutagenic energy in sunlight can cause skin can-
cer, and various substances in cigarettes causes lung cancer. Incorrect
replication in the 21 st chromosome in the reproductive cell, for instance,
leads to Down syndrome.
In order for the theory of evolution to account for the origin of life
on Earth, it must point to some mechanism that adds new, useful char-
acteristics, not damaging and destructive ones. How can a living thing

acquire a new characteristic? The only answer evolutionists have is "By
mutation."
They maintain that all species emerged through random muta-
tions acting on the DNA of a single germ cell-either egg or sperm. Yet
mutations-the foundation of evolutionists' claims-do not cause living
things to become more developed and perfect. Therefore, mutations are
not the kind of mechanism as is needed by the theory of evolution, nor

can they produce new characteristics.
We shall consider only the broad outlines of how mutations do
not, and cannot contribute to a species' evolution (For detailed informa-
tion, see Harun Yahya's Darwinism Refuted, Goodword Books, 2002; and