often essences with the changed genetic code are incapable to live or they live
not for a long time. Thus, the majority of mutations lead to extinction instead
of development. Besides, mutations
are very rare: approximately
1:100.000. Therefore mutations could never
execute the requirements of evolution.
Professor G. G. Simpson reports that the
mathematical probability of getting good evolutionary results would occur only
once in 274 billion years! And that would be assuming 100 million individuals
reproducing a new generation every day!
He concludes by saying: "
Obviously...such a process has played no part whatever in evolution.."
Evolutionists assert that the amoeba in the coarse of time turned into an invertebrate , which became an amphibian, then a reptile, a quadruped, an ape form, and finally a man. In other words, all species are in constant process of changing. This means that among ancient fossils of animal world should be millions of examples of mutated essences: half-developed fish, which are ready to become an amphibian, and reptiles half-transformed into birds, and mammals resembling monkeys and human beings.. However instead of finding those billions of confused family fossils, the scientists found exactly the opposite. Not a single hybrid was found.. Everything stays within the well-defined limits of its own basic kind.
In Genesis (1:25)it is said: «And God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and cattle after his kind, and every thing that crept upon the earth after their kind». The word "kind" refers to species, or a family. Each created family was to produce only its own kind. Thus, God meant that the change of one kind into another did not exist.
God did not say that there could be
no changes within the family. He did not create all the different color
varieties of dogs, cats, horses, etc. at the very beginning. There were only
pares: a male and female of each species, and many changes occurred since that
time to produce a great variety within the family. But cats always remained
cats, dogs are still dogs, and men are still men. Mutation
was responsible only for producing a new variety of the same species, but never
promoted the appearance of another new kind.
"common ancestor" that evolution demands has never existed. There is
no "missing link." Man and monkeys are supposed to stem from the same
animal ancestry! But even various
groups of monkeys differ much from each other. All of them are
different. Their blood is different, they have different genes and they are
breed only with the partners of their own kind.
of it some people still are
set by a question: chimpanzees, orangutans
are so similar to people, and may be a Neanderthal was that transitive
link from monkey to a man? The new
achievements of a Genetic science have allowed to break in ashes and this myth.
Found 27 distinctions in mitochondrial DNA between a
man and a Neanderthal and 55
distinctions between a man and chimpanzee
** allow confidently to assert, that a man,
a Neanderthal and a Chimpanzee are different
kinds, and there is nothing common in them.
Moreover, the recent researches (2000) showed, that 223 genes of a man
were not similar to any known genes of some other organic form of life. All this
proves the fact that a man did not develop independently from anything. However
for supporters of the theory of evolution it still not enough , now they try to
prove, that the genes changed under the influence of bacterium. Good luck.
several decades in school textbooks
the picture was demonstrated, where human’s embryo was compared with other
animal`s embryos . It was the main argument for the benefit of
the evolution: the
embryos were alike. Dr. Michael Richardson, embryologist at St. George's Medical
School in London together with the group of other scientists decided to repeat
the experiments with the growing embryos of 39 different species. In 1997 Dr.
Richardson said in his interview for “London Times”: " This is one of
the worst cases of scientific fraud. It's shocking to find that somebody one
thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry.
What Haeckel did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the
salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of
development. They don't. These are fakes."