DNA, the Mathematical Impossibility of Evolution


Evolutionists’ Oxymoron

Evolutionists naturally refute the claims of creationists that the “mathematical impossibility of evolution” is impossible. Atheist book Deception by Design, claims that the combination of biomolecules is determined by the “laws of chemistry and nuclear physics.” Question is, how can there be a “law” without intelligent intent?

Neutral theory of molecular evolution

Population geneticist Motoo Kimura resisted the “adaptationist perspective” with his neutral theory of molecular evolution. He argued that an “appreciable fraction” of the genetic variation within and between species is the result of “genetic drift.” Randomness in a (finite) population instead of “natural selection.” Interestingly, most of these differences have no functional consequences for survival and reproduction.

Biologists Jack Lester King and Thomas Jukes wrote an article “Non-Darwinian Evolution,” which emphasized the importance of random genetic changes in the course of evolution. Genetic drift accounts for most differences between populations or species, whereas the adaptationists credited them to positive selection for adaptive traits.

The bottom line is that even if you dress up evolution with high falutin and scientific labels, it takes a lot of faith to believe in an assumption supported by contrasting theories from fellow evolutionists.

- Google Ads -


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

- Google Ads -