Confusing Speculation in Evolutionary Theory

Is it truly a theory when there are various explanations which are very much inclusive but yet very much incompatible with each other? Do you think this is getting closer to reality or farther apart? In order to justify such funding and faith, there is always artificial hope that perhaps some day, an explanation will appear and explain everything in a secular way.

Your food cannot be cold or hot at the same time nor can you have two explanations that oppose one another for cooking your food and then in both instances claim that it will get you the same results.  And call this getting closer to the truth! When there is increased complexity with an explanation such as mentioned above, it means the explanation is distancing itself even more from the desired outcome.

Take origin speculation in evolution theory for example, it’s a paradigm in crisis! You see an array of proposals that are exclusive to one another and also falsifies one another. Here is an old theory which was discredited but now reborn as researchers try to come up with new ideas to save it according to phys.org…

“A new look at the early solar system introduces an alternative to a long-taught, but largely discredited, theory that seeks to explain how biomolecules were once able to form inside of asteroids. In place of the outdated theory, researchers at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute propose a new theory – based on a richer, more accurate image of magnetic fields and solar winds in the early solar system, and a mechanism known as multi-fluid magneto-hydrodynamics – to explain the ancient heating of the asteroid belt.”

“Although today the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter is cold and dry, scientists have long known that warm, wet conditions, suitable to formation of some biomolecules, the building blocks of life, once prevailed. Traces of bio-molecules found inside meteorites – which originated in the asteroid belt –could only have formed in the presence of warmth and moisture. One theory of the origin of life proposes that some of the biomolecules that formed on asteroids may have reached the surfaces of planets, and contributed to the origin of life as we know it.”

What all origin speculation in evolution sadly lacks is, where does all the biological information come from? Just like cooking food, you need information on how to cook it and you need information that makes the tools as well as production of those tools required to cook it such as a stove! Even if you have the information on how to build a stove but if the machinery doesn’t exist, a stove cannot be produced and if a stove cannot be produced, you can’t go out and buy one to cook your food either.

The genetic code is exclusive, it requires certain machinery in order to read and then translate it, encased in a cell with active transport! All these things are required and must be in operational working order from the beginning in order to build a genetic code. Origins in evolution is regressing, when was the last time you read about a new proposal? It appears that evolutionists have settled on particular origin theories along with reviving old ones. This is nothing more than confusing speculation in evolutionary theory that gets one further from reality rather than closer to it…

Is It Possible To Resurrect Proteins From The Dead?

No, this isn’t Jesus resurrecting from the dead, that is a separate but factual issue however, in a recent publication we noticed some secular scientists making claims that ancient proteins (assumed to be four billion years old) can be brought back to life!

Live Science puts it this way…

“Researchers have reconstructed the structure of 4-billion-year-old proteins.”

“The primeval proteins, described today (Aug. 8) in the journal Structure, could reveal new insights about the origin of life, said study co-author José Manuel Sanchez Ruíz, a physical chemist at the University of Granada in Spain.”

“Exactly how life emerged on Earth more than 3 billion years ago is a mystery. Some scientists believe that lightning struck the primordial soup in ammonia-rich oceans, producing the complex molecules that formed the precursors to life. Others believe that chemical reactions at deep-sea hydrothermal vents gave rise to cell membranes and simple cellular pumps. And still others believe that space rocks brought the raw ingredients for life — or perhaps even life itself — to Earth.”

“But it’s difficult to recreate events that happened so far in the distant past.”

The BBC news put it this way…

“The resurrected protein is thought to have existed almost four billion years ago in single-celled organisms linked to the earliest ancestor of all life.”

Neo-Darwinism relies on gradualism which relies on nature being flexible in a step by step by a non-intelligent process. However, sooner or later nature always comes into conflict with Neo-Darwinism as the researchers found out…

“Prof Eric Gaucher of Georgia Tech, US, helped with the ancestral gene sequence reconstruction and commented: “A gene can become deactivated by as few as one or two mutations.”

Only one or two mutations (errors in the genetic code), talk about something very incompatible with the theory of evolution! Where is the flexibility that is supposed to be the law of nature? To answer such a question, they theorize there must have been a “discrete” jump where it wouldn’t be observable through gradual pathways because it went by so fast like it was traveling at the speed of light.

Another thing, shouldn’t this ancient fossil, assumed to be billions of years old, be much simpler rather than complex, possessing all these functions? Is that how evolution works from simple cells to more complex? The BBC really goes off the deep end by invoking science fiction that was popular long before man landed on the moon by claiming thioredoxin had emerge on Mars and was transported by meteorites because they believe in the early years of earth that Mars was more “flexible” for life than earth was. Even though no life on Mars has been found neither has elements to sustain life been ever found!

Before scientists speculate and tell us or debate what they believe about origins of life, they first must understand what life is first as pointed out by NASA’s magazine…

“If we ever hope to identify life elsewhere in the universe, we need to understand what separates living creatures from non-living matter. A working definition lately used by NASA is that “life is a self-sustaining system capable of Darwinian evolution.” 

Evolutionists have never created life in a lab, let alone know how electricity from the sky causes life in a pond full of simple non-living chemicals. It is not science to make various claims because we observe very highly designed complex cells so they emerged somehow in an unseen ancestor. We have observed a functioning that cell requires to have all its parts working correctly at once to remain a functioning cell as evolutionist, Wilhelm Huck even points out! So was it a “discrete” miracle in evolution?

Science is supposed to be about observable, testable, and repeatable events rather than scientists telling us what they believe could have happened in a supposed billions of years time frame. And the cell wasn’t resurrected from the dead like the BBC claimed. I don’t blame them for wanting a “time machine” to observe the distant past, they would have learned a great deal on how the earth was intelligently designed.

Speculation On Origin Hinders Science

Back in the 1990’s, Dave McKay of NASA’s Johnson Space Center came out and said, he discovered a meteorite that landed on Earth from Mars which contained something that once lived. The meteorite called Allan Hills 84001 because it was discovered in 1984, in the Allan Hills of Antarctica. The claims by Dave McKay became a subject of controversy as other scientists examined the meteorite and a wealth of scientific papers concluded that non-biological processes could account for what they observed on the rock.

McKay had major hurdles to overcome, even if they discovered bacteria how are going to prove it was from Mars and not Earth? Also, questions arise like, how could organic chemicals have resisted vaporization for 38 million years in a total vacuum and then going through the Earth’s atmosphere? What’s the difference between alien bacteria, and earth’s bacteria? Not long after the published hyped story about the meteorite, the Clinton administration in turn, produced government funding targeted for “Astrobiology” and it’s been a waste a money ever since! Can one tell me what major discovery has improved science with more funding in “Astrobiology?”  

Recently in science daily, we read headlines that go like this…“Untangling Life’s Origins,” an indication it’s a huge mess, so they proposed a big bang for the protein! Well, it is believed among many evolutionists (despite all its problems) that the big band worked in space why not have it work in nature? Despite that idea which is not scientific, complexities of biological functions concerning molecules remain poorly understood among scientists! Shouldn’t evolutionists be waiting on that first before throwing out proposals about origins?

In another article, in space.com, we read…

“Could life have evolved on Mars Before Earth?”

“The discovery that ancient Mars could have supported microbes raises the tantalizing possibility that life may have evolved on the Red Planet before it took root on Earth. New observations by NASA’s Curiosity rover suggest that microbial life could have survived on Mars in the distant past, when the Red Planet was a warmer and wetter place, scientists announced…” 

But where is the microbial? None was discovered! Rather, the story was hyped for a reason and that reason is funding. It is not enough to just explore another planet, they have to come up with some sort of imaginary stories for marketing purposes. Scientists have their own bias, while some argue that science itself is supposed to be based on observations, that are repeated, and demonstrated. These stories about what Curiosity is finding on the plant hinders science!

Evolutionists spend a great deal of time creating study after study then coming up with conclusions that cannot be observed nor verified.  Here is a proposal, get rid of the funding for origins that create nothing more than stories, and shift that funding to where research needs it like studying complexities of biological functions concerning molecules which remain poorly understood! How about using that funding for finding better treatments for cancer? Surely we can find better use for that funding besides using it for hyped up stories about origins!

Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence of God?

In part one of this series, the philosophy of science along with defining information, and its use.  Also, the difference between Christians getting their philosophy of life from the Bible and evolutionists who get their philosophy of life from the data. Along with merging historical science with operational science which is not logical! And lastly, part one covered the laws of thermodynamics.

Philosopher of science, David Hull once said…

“Science is not as empirical as many scientists seem to think it is. Unobserved and even unobservable, entities play an important part in it. Science is not just the making of observations: it is making inferences on the basis of observations within the framework of a theory.”

In part two, we are going to go more in-depth on using science to detect intelligence as the source of the creation and the mindless process known as evolution. This is not a new revelation because even secular researchers know that science has revealed nature as being designed but go out of their way trying to disprove it like biologist Richard Dawkins, a well-known atheist who for years has been in denial about the existence of God.

In the debate on whether or not nature was designed, there is a fallacy which always comes up and is often times used…In a recent conference on human evolution,  Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer and Alan Mann from Princeton express their worldview (here and here) by claiming the human body is a product of poor design, thus in their minds evolution is doing it all!

“Bad backs, dangerous childbirths, sore feet and wisdom teeth pains are among the many ailments humans face from evolution, researchers say.

“In an evolutionary sense, humans are by far the most successful primates on the planet, with a world population close to 7 billion. Humanity owes this success to a number of well-known adaptations, such as large, complex brains and walking upright on two feet. However, there are downsides to these advances as well.”

Latimer explains his argument against intelligent design while favoring evolution…

“If an engineer were given the task to design the human body, he or she would never have done it the way humans have evolved,” Latimer said. “Unfortunately, we can’t go back to walking on four feet. We’ve undergone too much evolutionary change for that—and it is not the answer to our problems.”

Firstly, Latimer uses petty arguments in his worldview when defending evolution such as “sore feet” which can be caused by a variety of things rather than a poor design. Secondly, his argument consists of the claim that if a human designer (rather than just implying God) created all things, the creation would be perfectly designed in all aspects so therefore it is implied by Latimer that neither man nor God could have been the creator.  However, this is not the case and since he used human engineering as an example, this will be addressed. Human engineers do not create perfect machinery, nor  perfect building structures, nor anything else that would be considered perfect for that matter in the realm of engineering!

Rather such things like the machinery which was built by human intelligence eventually wears out over time (causing problems with normal functions) thus, there is a need for a replacement. And certainly these human-made machines are far from being a perfect design otherwise, there would be no need for advancements which are better than previous built designs! Also, engineers do not create other things perfect like cars either. As science progresses, these designs of cars also improve over time! Since human engineering has flaws with room for improvements, it doesn’t mean the machinery itself was not intelligently designed as Latimer suggests!  And lastly, in the modern intelligent design movement, they do not advocate perfect designs as proof neither does creationism.

Here is what their position is…

“It may well be that the designer chose to create an “optimum design” or a “robust and adaptable design” rather than a “perfect design.” Perhaps some animals or creatures behave exactly the way they do to enhance the ecology in ways that we don’t know about. Perhaps the “apparent” destructive behavior of some animals provides other animals with an advantage in order to maintain balance in nature or even to change the proportions of the animal population.”

What the modern intelligent design movement believes to be proof…

“We infer design when we see that parts appear to be arranged for a purpose. The more parts that are arranged, and the more intricately they interact, the stronger is our confidence in design.”

So Latimer’s argument as well as Alan’s falls flat with the facts which reminds me of Shakespeare who once said, “What a piece of work is a man! How noble in reason, how infinite in faulty, in form and moving how express and admirable, in action like an angel, in apprehension…how like a god.”

Atheist Richard Dawkins in his book, The Blind Watchmaker published in 1996…

“Natural selection is the blind watchmaker, blind because it does not see ahead, does not plan consequences, has no purpose in view. Yet the living results of natural selectioin overwhelmingly impress us with the appearance of design as if by a master watchmaker, impress us with the illusion of design and planning. The purpose of this book is to resolve the paradox to the satisfaction of the reader, and the purpose of this chapter is further to impress the reader with the power of the illusion of design.”

Without trying to deny design in nature while making a case for evolutionary causes about the human body, secular scientists as well as other scientists, marvel on how well the human body operates! Calling it “amazing” or “incredible.”

In 1980, Michael Denton, a molecular biologist dropped a bombshell on the scientific community when he wrote his controversial book called “Evolution: A Theory In Crisis” where he says that new discoveries in biology are opening up new levels of detail concerning the operation of the human body and are revealing more precise functioning than ever imagined. Much like we see today! Dr. Charles Thaxton in the 1990s argued for intelligent design of the human body. His argument was called the principle of uniform experience.

Years later in 2008, “The Cells Design” by Fazale Rana was published. Although the book claims to be a breakthrough for the case of design, it uses the same principle of uniform experience. The research in the book is quite remarkable and very educational along with excellent analysis which is well worth the read!

To give an idea on what this principle of uniform experience is about, one needs to look at the formation of a beautiful tapestry. First, one has to have a blueprint (information) for the tapestry. Second, one needs to decide which colors will be used and what pattern the colors will be used in. Third, one must pick out the type of fabric that will be used. This design can only be accomplished through intelligence, rather than randomly picked colors and fabrics, for they must coordinate and compliment each other. A mindless process cannot tell one color from the next or if the colors coordinate and compliment each other neither can it direct nature to come up with certain colors in order to accomplish it.

It is similar with the human body, which requires precise movement, coordination, and communication among our body’s cells!  The human body is mostly made up with an estimate of 100 trillion cells! Every single cell, every fiber is loaded with activity! The human body is a very busy place, even when your sleeping as it always keeps building, renovating, reproducing, and growing. It converts one energy source into another while sending and receiving messages in a particular language that it can understand. It fights off intruders, and performs some of the most amazing balance acts known to man!

The human body is a highly advanced design, which requires various layers of organization to keep things running smoothly. Each cell is an irreducibly complex system where it requires several interacting components to be present and functioning at the same time. The removal of one or more of the components in a human cell causing the whole system to malfunction and die. In other words this is no room for the halfway point (or anything else in-between) concerning biology! Many cellular processes will not work unless every component is present and functioning.

Like every system in the universe, but unlike evolution, the human body winds down which is why we have upper age limits. Cells eventually wear out and die. The cells in our body will multiply, repair itself, but it will not keep on renewing our bodies forever! Typos in our DNA code known as mutations are killing us! Mutations are also linked to over 1,000 human diseases!

We obtain three mutations per cell division. An average cell can divide around 90 times which would give us an enormous about of mutations over time. Michael Lynch, a population geneticist who life’s work was measuring this stuff, in his paper published in PNAS 107:961-968, says that by the time we reach the age of 15, we obtain on average 6,000 mutations per cell. By the time we reach 60 years old, we obtain 40,000 mutations with our skin cells alone! Mutations Michael Lynch says, is the primary cause of aging and death.

The human body is one of the most amazing complex type of machinery known to man. Each part of the body has its own job,. The parts work together to keep the body alive much like the parts on a car which work together to keep it going! We have just scratched the surface on this subject, there is more amazing engineering that will be addressed.

To Be Continued…

Can Science Prove or Disprove The Existence Of God?

For thousands of years, this has been a debated topic. More so in the modern information age than ever before! Some claim, it can’t be proven nor disproved while others claim science is unable to prove the existence of God but it surely can disprove it. And lastly, science can confirm the existence of God which is the theme of this blog!

The Bible says, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (I Thessalonians 5:21). If it wasn’t possible to prove God’s existence then this text would not be in the Bible. We are going to take a look at various evidences but before we begin, let’s keep in mind that speculation is not valid, because it goes into the realm of alleging multiple miracles of improbability which cannot be verified through traditional means, neither are superstitious myths or traditions based on ignorance!

The definition of ‘science’ has been quite a challenge for philosophers since the 20th century because of growing complexity within evolution’s framework. Prior to that, Bacon who was an English philosopher during the middle ages, known to have popularize the concept of empiricism, was very straight forward with the definition of science which goes like this…

1) Observation 2) Induction 3) Hypothesis 4) Test Hypothesis 5) proof/disprove 6) Knowledge

In creationism the philosophy of life comes from the Bible rather than the data  which is atheism such as adopting a lifestyle of polygamy because of animal behavior as advocated in Live Science, but philosophy is brought to the data and used for interpretation! The establishment within the scientific community (which are evolutionists) have boxed in its own particular ideas for advancement purposes as well as indoctrination. Even if those ideas have naturalistic causes in their explanations, it is still not allowed in the boxed area. It is so tightly boxed in, there are assigned theories that get treated as though it cannot be falsified which means it’s not science!

The reason why they box science in like this is mainly because they want people to have faith in it which in turns brings more money to continue the research. This is why new ideas usually come from up and coming scientists rather than from the establishment itself.

Stephen Jay Gould who is was known to be a strong proponent for evolution once said…“Our ways of learning about the world are strongly influenced by the social perceptions and biased modes of thinking that each scientist must apply to any problem. The stereotype of a fully rational and objective scientific method with individual scientists as logical robots is self-serving mythology.”

Sir Isaac Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time, conducted science without excluding a creator. He believed God created all things! Newton was all about operational science. Unlike evolution which tells so-so stories where proponents confuse operational science with origins. It is interesting to note that philosophy of science is being under taught to students in the Universities today while focusing on blending experimental, historical and origin sciences all together into one big happy family!

Creationism loves operational science because the evidence drives it! For example, it doesn’t matter what background or nationality you are or what you believe in, using a slow cooker will eventually cook your food to a satisfactory level!

We are living in a day in age where there is an enormous wealth of scientific research being conducted all over the world! Billions of dollars are being spent by governments and private industry. New discoveries in science have been brought to light, containing sufficient evidence for a creator while adding to the complexity of evolution that continues to plague its explanation.

The likes of Stephen Hawkings who is regarded as one of smartest men that ever lived, denies God’s existence. Because he relies on so much of his own rationality, he is not only at odds with a creator, but the philosophy of science as well (often times attacking philosophers) by proposing such things as M theory to explain how the universe came into being from nothing. Hawkings postulates that natural laws were responsible for the creating the universe out of nothing.

We know that physical laws are a description of what happened, not the cause of the act itself. Physicist, Paul Davis once said, “There is no law of physics able to create information from nothing.” One of the most scientific laws known to man is, The first Law of Thermodynamics which says, Matter and energy can be neither created nor destroyed. What does that mean? It means that there is no new matter coming into existence, nor new matter going out of existence. So when Hawkings postulates natural laws are the cause of something being created out of nothing, he is wrong!

It is interesting to note, the first law of thermodynamics, which was established by the very scientific community who seem willing now to ignore it for the sake of their own worldview. The law demonstrates, the universe had to come from a source and that source is God! Let’s go deeper into that proposal! Bill Dembski from the modern intelligent design movement which has it flaws (see here), but valid arguments against evolution, gives his proof from a scientific prospective for the existence of God.

Since new energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what about claims that the universe is evolving into a more complex order? This can be addressed with an observable fact, The Second Law of Thermodynamics! The concept of the universe evolving into a more complex order goes against the second law of thermodynamics which can be best summarized by saying that everything moves toward disorder—or a condition known as entropy! 

We have seen the second law in action even with nature with experiments on mutations concerning fruit flies where after many generations were created in an ideal setting, the fruit flies become resist to change rather than more open to change and begin to go in reverse which surprised many evolutionists who were seeking to expand their knowledge on how new information was created through errors! When applied to the universe, the second law of thermodynamics suggests its winding down, rather than up! Have scientist discovered such evidence in their research?

Yes! Energy cannot recycle itself. There is evidence from decaying stars like exploding stars such as a supernovae. Black holes are another which takes free energy out of the system (the universe). The sun will not provide heat forever, it will eventually cool off. The universe is wearing out and winding down! It like your hot cup of coffee or hot chocolate, the heat winds down to whatever environment you’re in. For example, you outside in 32 degrees, that hot coffee will become that temperature. Something cold doesn’t increase without adding outside energy to it such as a stove providing that outside energy!

Can an intelligent cause (God) be detected with traditional scientific means? Yes! Engineering is certainly detectable. We see it all around us, our houses, cars, where we work, and so on. People who work on improving technology for example, working on improving the design of a car to fit our needs, the tech guy doesn’t apply principles based on evolution to build a better car! He uses intelligent information that helps him build or improve the car. Without information no car can be built nor improved!

It’s a concept that many evolutionary scientists tend to overlook when exploring the origin issue with their conclusions of the experiments. Recently, scientists did an experiment that was able to get RNAs called CA and TAP to self-assemble in a lab. Normally they clump together causing it not to assemble but researchers gave TAP a tail that transformed it into chemical which allows it to assemble with CA in water but no double helix or paired bases emerged!

The experiment made headline news with a lot of hype (except from nature), but one very important things is lacking in the experiment. And that is, information or code! Much like building a car, you need information to build one, it is the same for building a living cell! There is so much information contained in a human cell that it is able to store all 30 volumes of Encyclopedia Britannica! Not just one copy of the 30 volumes but up to four copies of the 30 volume set!

If it wasn’t possible to detect intelligent design in nature, would you think SETI whose mission is to discover alien life forms on other planets would exist? The detection of design, rather than a mindless process through picking out random acts which are considered errors, relies upon “specified complexity.”

If you were to read letters like this…YJZOEQ, this would mean to be a random act, no order that makes sense. But if you read letters like this…SCIENCE, this is specialize complexity that has order to it along with giving you information! In a living cell with all its machinery requires not random errors, but specified information!

If you create errors (known as mutations), the information will breakdown, for example, SIENCE. which no longer gives you specified information, the word now becomes random which doesn’t make any sense. Not only does a living cell require information, but particular information to fit its needs! You can’t build an empire state building with information that only builds cars! Likewise you can’t build a living cell without specified information for that cell!

To Be Continued…

What Creates Innovation?

We sometimes like you use “creativity” for “innovation” or “innovation” for “creativity” but these two words contain separate meanings.  Creativity is an idea, while innovation is bringing that idea to life.

Creationists view DNA including so-called, “Junk DNA” as creativity while evolutionists view junk mutations as “innovation” thus skipping the “creativity” part because evolution has no idea, because it’s considered to be a mindless process.  Well, maybe not! However, evolutionists continue to seek something in mutations that can define “creativity” (without the idea part of it if that makes any sense) as found in such articles as this recent one in phys.org...”Insects show how DNA mistakes become evolutionary innovation.”

It continues…

“In two recently published projects, however, scientists show how typos can indeed lead to improvements. In numerous species of insects, they document the DNA errors that led to changes that are not only beneficial but also brilliant. Various species of beetles, aphids, butterflies, and moths have independently acquired genetic errors that allow them to eat highly toxic plants and then use the toxins to defend themselves against predators.”

What did Faye Flam (the reporter) offer as proof for this assumption? Mutations (copy errors in the DNA) caused the cardenolides not to bind to the enzymes required by the insects’ sodium pump. Notice, the insects are still the same species, and there was no increase in novel genetic information, or even specified complex structures.  So the mutations themselves lack the ability to explain origin like how did the sodium pump and the enzyme come into existence in the first place? Do you know what I mean?

By removing one of your fingers to slip out of the handcuffs or even removing one of your arms so your hands could never be handcuffed ever again would not be considered a new innovative mechanism but it’s only a reduced vulnerability! The article celebrated this experiment as an “evolutionary trick” that produced “convergent evolution” in different insect lineages.

The author of the article seems to forget that evolution should be producing novel information (rather than reducing a vulnerability) that leads to new species.  Flam (the author of the article) could not claim that the varieties able to ingest the toxins were new species; but rather he confessed at the end, “The way new species are born is another longstanding puzzle in evolution that DNA is helping scientists to solve.”  In other words, comeback for promised evidence of innovation without the idea behind it.

Where is the really big innovation attributable to mutations? Duplications are a form of mutation, but just because you get a second copy of your twitter feed,  doesn’t mean the second one will evolve into a new, or better feed when cosmic rays hit it. Mutations can change existing information while decaying the information but there is no evidence that it can produce novel information!

So what creates innovation? The answer is simple, nothing creates innovation, creativity is the idea that innovation brings to life and ideas as we observe them come from intelligence! Whether it be artwork, a car engine, your computer, your smartphone, or nature itself! Without creativity there is no innovation.

Evolutionary Assumption: Mutation Clock

How do evolutionists date important events? They use what is known as the “Mutation Clock” in humans. A recent study conducted for three years has shown that this clock is half off by their own assumptions!

The study was published in science magazine…

“Now it seems that the molecular clock ticks more slowly than anyone had thought, and many dates may need to be adjusted. Over the past 3 years, researchers have used new methods to sequence whole human genomes, allowing them to measure directly, for the first time, the average rate at which new mutations arise in a newborn baby. Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000.

“Together, these papers make a convincing case that the human sequence mutation rate is substantially less than the one previously used,” says Harvard University population geneticist David Reich, co-author of one recent study. “As a result, genetic estimates of dates for ancient events are going to be older than previously reported.”

This could throw off many events because “timing” is so important in the evolutionary story. Now paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer is calling these events, “very murky” while John Hawks sounded the alarm, “We can’t figure out how things happened if we don’t know when they happened.” 

Other problems include:

1) The first appearance of a fossil may not represent the first appearance of the species!

2)  “there are no fossils of our closest living relatives: chimps and gorillas”

3) Genes may have diverge long before species do.

4) Mutation rates can differ between apes due to other factors, like years between generations.

While evolutionists admit that mutations are a key component for explaining human evolution for better or worse “because most new mutations are deleterious.”  The only thing empirical in the study is mutations rates of humans in a certain part of the world, and fossil bones with no dates on them.

In desperation they cling to mutations as sources of novelty that can transform one species into the next with amazing specialized complexity when they know full well that most of them are not beneficial and admitting that 36 mutations per generation is deadly, while  ignoring the millions of neutral or nearly neutral mutations that cause code decay over time which doesn’t help evolution’s story.  A good study on this is, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford which is a great read! He explains genetic entropy which is an observational fact, very well!

With most mutations non-beneficial and with 36 deadly mutations per generation, the human race could not have survived tens of thousands of years at that rate of change! Here is an analogy, if you type mistakes (typos) in a research paper for example, over the course of time especially a long period of time, that information begins to break down and becomes unreadable and useless!

Humans haven’t been around tens of thousands of years!  That’s why civilization, agriculture and the technology appeared so abruptly, just like history shows, less than 10,000 years ago which confirms creationism!