Page 66 - Death of the Darwinist Dajjal System

Death of the Darwinist Dajjal System

not be copied in the absence of particular enzymes that control one an-
other against errors. These include double-filter enzymes for ensuring
that the right amino acid binds to the right tRNA. One filter rejects
amino acids that are too large, and the other those that are too small.
This is a very sensitive and rational system. There are also enzymes that
do final checks against the possibility of any error arising in this intel-
ligent system. Scientists have concluded that they could not imagine a
better cellular control and protection system aimed at maintaining the
integrity of DNA. 18
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. 19
Darwinists ignore this miraculous system present in DNA and
avoid going deeply into the subject and coming up with any explana-
tion of it; yet they construct a scenario of the history of life built on
replication errors with an almost zero possibility of happening. This
once again reveals the nonsensical nature of Darwinist logic.
Following the realization that Darwin’s idea of natural selection
most definitely did not constitute an account of evolution and the
emergence of the laws of genetics becoming a lethal blow to

Darwinism, the claim of the “evolutionary effect of mutations,” which
had been the main weapon of neo-Darwinism, was seen to be no more
than a deception. It is absolutely ridiculous to claim that a mechanism
such as a mutation, which damages, destroys and kills the living organ-
ism, as well as sometimes harming all subsequent generations, can give
rise to entirely new living things. But masses of people were taken in
by this lie for years. Darwinist scientists of course know that mutations
have no such miraculous power. Even Richard Dawkins, one of the
present day’s most fervid Darwinists, admits that “most mutations are
20
deleterious, so some undesirable side effect is pretty likely.” The reason why

64