ÃÍãÏ ÚÈÏÇááå.
04-15-2013, 11:21 AM
Evolutionists' Erroneous Theory
About Sickle Cell Anemia
The theory of evolution ascribes the origin of living things to two natural mechanisms: Natural selection and mutation. Evolutionists expect that mutations will, bit by bit, create new biological structures. According to the theory, at least a portion of these random mutations must be beneficial, must add new genetic information to existing organisms, and must lead to the development of new organs and biochemical structures that did not exist before. These beneficial structures will then be favored by natural selection, and evolution will thus take place.
This scenario is utterly imaginary. The most serious problem the theory faces with is the fact that in the real world there are no beneficial mutations. Ever since the development of the science of genetics, Darwinist biologists have long sought some example of a mutation that would verify their claims. However, after lengthy studies and experiments, they have determined that every example of mutation—far from improving on living organisms—has actually damaged them, sometimes fatally, or, at the very best having little or no impact at all. Yet Darwinists do not give up, even in the face of all these failed experiments. They blindly continue to believe that mutations can be beneficial and can bring new, advantageous features to organisms.
To keep their beliefs alive, the evolutionists do not hesitate to claim that sickle cell anemia—a very serious and even fatal disease—is an example of a so-called beneficial mutation. The factor in this disease that deforms the hemoglobin was originally a mutation, which damages hemoglobin's ability to transport oxygen. Therefore—as we saw in the preceding pages—oxygen cannot be carried to certain cells, resulting in severe diseases, even fatal health problems.
In a most peculiar manner, however, some evolutionist biologists describe the mutation that causes this defect as beneficial. (This erroneous information is even taught in biology textbooks in high schools.) The basis of this claim is that the mutation concerned represents a defense against another disease—malaria. People suffering from sickle cell anemia receive two mutated sickle cell genes—one from their mother and one from the father. However, those who receive only a single mutated gene from either parent do not develop the disease, but become carriers. In such individuals, the sickle cell symptoms of the disease are not very strong. However, their carrying only a single mutated gene makes them resistant to malaria.
Malaria parasite attacks healthy, round blood cells, but does not attack blood cells in sickle form. For that reason, even if the malaria parasite enters the bodies of such individuals, it won't cause the disease.20
Evolutionists regard the way that the sickle cell provides a defense against malaria as an advantage, and describe the mutation that caused it as a beneficial one. However, this mutation—which leads to severe and even deadly damage in the body, due to the blood's inability to nourish certain tissues, and which spreads by being passed on to subsequent generations—clearly harms those who carry it.
Evolutionists ignore all these factors and appraise the partial immunity as a gift of evolution. This is of course utterly nonsensical. According to that line of thought, one could claim that people born blind will not have to drive cars and therefore, enjoy a reduced risk of dying in traffic accidents. According to that irrational logic, being born blind could be regarded as a genetic gift. This is no more meaningless than evolutionists' interpretations of sickle cell anemia as a beneficial mutation.
David N. Menton, a professor of biology from Brown University, describes this so-called beneficial mutation as follows:
This mutation of blood hemoglobin is considered "good" because people who have it (and survive it!) are more resistant to the disease malaria. The symptoms of this "good" mutation include: acute attacks of abdominal and joint pain, ulcers on the legs, defective red blood cells, and severe anemia—often leading to death. One can only imagine what the "bad" mutations are like! No wonder that H. J. Mueller, who won the Nobel prize for his work on mutations, said: "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing—good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad."21
Another point regarding this claim made by evolutionists needs to be considered. The majority of carriers, who are not themselves affected by the disease, live in Africa, where the risk of malaria is very high. This allows any carrier of sickle cell anemia, thanks to the so-called beneficial mutation, to pass the defective gene on to his or her children. The spread of the gene in this way increases the next generation's chances of receiving a defective gene from both mother and father. Defective genes being received from both parents means that the child will inevitably suffer from sickle cell anemia. Or else if healthy genes are inherited from both parents, that person will not be a carrier and thus will have no immunity to malaria.
Indeed, sickle cell anemia, which develops with a change in just one of the 287 amino acids in hemoglobin, leads to the death of 25% of those who suffer from it.22
Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, a world famous authority on sickle cell anemia and author of The Sickle Cell Disease Patient, says these on the subject:
If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in
the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease.23
Evidently, evolutionists are in a serious contradiction on the subject of the mutations, which they regard as a major mechanism in the emergence of new species. The way that they portray a genetic disease that is clearly harmful to humanity as evidence for evolution once again reveals the weak foundations on which the theory is constructed. It appears that the fanatical supporters of the theory, by now totally discredited, are desperately trying to keep it alive. Yet their efforts only serve to further humiliate the Darwinists
source:
THE MIRACLE OF THE BLOOD AND HEART
Harun Yahya:.
About Sickle Cell Anemia
The theory of evolution ascribes the origin of living things to two natural mechanisms: Natural selection and mutation. Evolutionists expect that mutations will, bit by bit, create new biological structures. According to the theory, at least a portion of these random mutations must be beneficial, must add new genetic information to existing organisms, and must lead to the development of new organs and biochemical structures that did not exist before. These beneficial structures will then be favored by natural selection, and evolution will thus take place.
This scenario is utterly imaginary. The most serious problem the theory faces with is the fact that in the real world there are no beneficial mutations. Ever since the development of the science of genetics, Darwinist biologists have long sought some example of a mutation that would verify their claims. However, after lengthy studies and experiments, they have determined that every example of mutation—far from improving on living organisms—has actually damaged them, sometimes fatally, or, at the very best having little or no impact at all. Yet Darwinists do not give up, even in the face of all these failed experiments. They blindly continue to believe that mutations can be beneficial and can bring new, advantageous features to organisms.
To keep their beliefs alive, the evolutionists do not hesitate to claim that sickle cell anemia—a very serious and even fatal disease—is an example of a so-called beneficial mutation. The factor in this disease that deforms the hemoglobin was originally a mutation, which damages hemoglobin's ability to transport oxygen. Therefore—as we saw in the preceding pages—oxygen cannot be carried to certain cells, resulting in severe diseases, even fatal health problems.
In a most peculiar manner, however, some evolutionist biologists describe the mutation that causes this defect as beneficial. (This erroneous information is even taught in biology textbooks in high schools.) The basis of this claim is that the mutation concerned represents a defense against another disease—malaria. People suffering from sickle cell anemia receive two mutated sickle cell genes—one from their mother and one from the father. However, those who receive only a single mutated gene from either parent do not develop the disease, but become carriers. In such individuals, the sickle cell symptoms of the disease are not very strong. However, their carrying only a single mutated gene makes them resistant to malaria.
Malaria parasite attacks healthy, round blood cells, but does not attack blood cells in sickle form. For that reason, even if the malaria parasite enters the bodies of such individuals, it won't cause the disease.20
Evolutionists regard the way that the sickle cell provides a defense against malaria as an advantage, and describe the mutation that caused it as a beneficial one. However, this mutation—which leads to severe and even deadly damage in the body, due to the blood's inability to nourish certain tissues, and which spreads by being passed on to subsequent generations—clearly harms those who carry it.
Evolutionists ignore all these factors and appraise the partial immunity as a gift of evolution. This is of course utterly nonsensical. According to that line of thought, one could claim that people born blind will not have to drive cars and therefore, enjoy a reduced risk of dying in traffic accidents. According to that irrational logic, being born blind could be regarded as a genetic gift. This is no more meaningless than evolutionists' interpretations of sickle cell anemia as a beneficial mutation.
David N. Menton, a professor of biology from Brown University, describes this so-called beneficial mutation as follows:
This mutation of blood hemoglobin is considered "good" because people who have it (and survive it!) are more resistant to the disease malaria. The symptoms of this "good" mutation include: acute attacks of abdominal and joint pain, ulcers on the legs, defective red blood cells, and severe anemia—often leading to death. One can only imagine what the "bad" mutations are like! No wonder that H. J. Mueller, who won the Nobel prize for his work on mutations, said: "It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing—good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad."21
Another point regarding this claim made by evolutionists needs to be considered. The majority of carriers, who are not themselves affected by the disease, live in Africa, where the risk of malaria is very high. This allows any carrier of sickle cell anemia, thanks to the so-called beneficial mutation, to pass the defective gene on to his or her children. The spread of the gene in this way increases the next generation's chances of receiving a defective gene from both mother and father. Defective genes being received from both parents means that the child will inevitably suffer from sickle cell anemia. Or else if healthy genes are inherited from both parents, that person will not be a carrier and thus will have no immunity to malaria.
Indeed, sickle cell anemia, which develops with a change in just one of the 287 amino acids in hemoglobin, leads to the death of 25% of those who suffer from it.22
Dr. Felix Konotey-Ahulu, a world famous authority on sickle cell anemia and author of The Sickle Cell Disease Patient, says these on the subject:
If you are resistant to malaria, you are more likely to survive to pass on your genes. Nevertheless, it is a defect, not an increase in complexity or an improvement in function which is being selected for, and having more carriers in
the population means that there will be more people suffering from this terrible disease.23
Evidently, evolutionists are in a serious contradiction on the subject of the mutations, which they regard as a major mechanism in the emergence of new species. The way that they portray a genetic disease that is clearly harmful to humanity as evidence for evolution once again reveals the weak foundations on which the theory is constructed. It appears that the fanatical supporters of the theory, by now totally discredited, are desperately trying to keep it alive. Yet their efforts only serve to further humiliate the Darwinists
source:
THE MIRACLE OF THE BLOOD AND HEART
Harun Yahya:.