46 chromosomes- Significance of Number of chromosomes ?!

According to darwinism, human has a microbe-like grandfather, he kept reproducing till we found an imaginary common ancestor for human and chimp.

This tale was confronted by the fact that human has 46 chromosomes while apes have 48 !
Looks more or less similar ?!
In fact, the number of chromosomes doesn't hold much importance. What really counts is the genetic information itself.

Let's have a look at other creatures that have the same number of chromosomes-just like human !

- Black rat (Rattus rattus)

- Merriam’s ground squirrel (Spermophilus canus)

- Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis)
- Grevy’s zebra (Equus grevyi)
- Mountain beaver (Aplodontia rufa)
- Muntjacs (Muntiacus reevesi)

- Beach vole (Microtus breweri)
- Nilgai (Boselaphus tragocamelus)
- Kirk’s dik-dik (Rhynchotragus/Madoqua kirkii )

- Grey/common vole (Microtus arvalis)

- Large bentwing bat (miniopterus schreibersi)
- Bolivian Tuco-tuco (Ctenomys boliviensis)

- Crowned Lemur (Lemur mongoz coronatus)
- Red Titi (Callicebus cupreus)

Sable antelope  (Kafue, Zambia)


On the other hand these species also have 48 chromosomes, just like chimpanzee.

- European hare/jackrabbit (Lepus europeus)





It's obvious that none is a supposed relative neither for human nor chimpanzee !

Mutations, Mechanism Of Evolution ?

The reasons why mutations cannot support evolutionist claims may be summarized under these main headings:          
1. Mutations are mostly harmful.
Since they occur at random, they always damage living things. Logically, any unconscious intervention in a perfect and complex structure will damage it, rather than causing it to develop.
Darwinists maintain that species emerge from one another through structures and organs appearing as a result of countless fictitious and beneficial mutations.
The American geneticist B.G. Ranganathan explains:
'Most mutations are harmful since they are random, rather than orderly changes in the structure of genes; any random change in a highly ordered system will be for the worse, not for the better. For example, if an earthquake were to shake a highly ordered structure such as a building, there would be a random change in the framework of the building, which, in all probability, would not be an improvement.'

The evolutionist scientist Warren Weaver said the following about a report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, set up to examine the mutations arising as a result of nuclear weapons in the wake of the Second World War:

'Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - result from mutations, practically all of which are harmful?'

These photographs show some of the damaging effects of mutation on the human body.

A process that cripples individuals or leaves them ill cannot, of course, give rise to any progress.

In a scientific paper, David Demick, an American pathologist, wrote this to say about mutations:
'Literally thousands of human diseases associated with genetic mutations have been
catalogued in recent years, with more being described continually. A recent reference book of medical genetics listed some 4,500 different genetic diseases. Some of the inherited syndromes characterized clinically in the days before molecular genetic analysis (such as Marfan's syndrome) are now being shown to be heterogeneous; that is, associated with many different mutations.

With this array of human diseases that are caused by mutations, what of positive effects? With thousands of examples of harmful mutations readily available, surely it should be possible to describe some positive mutations if macroevolution is true. These would be needed not only for evolution to greater complexity, but also to offset the downward pull of the many harmful mutations. But, when it comes to identifying positive mutations, evolutionary scientists are strangely silent.'(David Demick, "The Blind Gunman," Impact, No. 308, February 1999)

DNA Repair

Research has revealed that there are protective elements in the cell that prevent genetic errors arising.

God has designed a number of DNA repair systems and proofreaders (enzymes), each to take on different repair problems. For example, there are enzymes involved with mismatch excision repair (MMR) that recognize wrongly paired bases, and nucleotide excision repair (NER), which is a universal "cut and patch" repair mechanism. NER operates to remove the mistake — called a lesion — and fill in the gap with new DNA. One may liken this to a dentist drilling out decay and replacing the hole with a filling (the "filling" in DNA repair is a functional nucleotide). There are also tiny molecular motors (see "Origins Issues," Acts & Facts, April 2004) called helicases (e.g., DnaB helicase and other multimeric motors) that literally unwind DNA from the normal double-stranded state into two single strands. Helicases accomplish this by rapidly breaking
hydrogen bonds between the nucleotides (the "ladder rungs" portion of the molecule) in a manner somewhat like the way inchworms move. Other specially designed enzymes must immediately keep the two single strands apart once they are separated. From there, efficient repair of the DNA continues. Occasionally this amazing repair mechanism fails — as all of our systems eventually do — and a permanent alteration or change in that portion of the DNA results. This is called a mutation. Of course, mutations in critical areas can be deadly to an organism.(Sherwin, F. 2004. Mending Mistakes—The Amazing Ability of Repair. Acts & Facts. 33 (6).)

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.'

2. No new genetic information can be added to DNA as a result of mutation.

The components of the genetic information are removed and dismantled, damaged or carried to other locations in the DNA. Yet mutations can never cause a living thing to acquire a new organ or attribute.

It is therefore impossible for a brand new organ or characteristic that did not exist before to appear by chance as the result of mutations. Mutations have no power to bestow new information on a life form that does not belong to it, or to turn it into a different organism.

3. For a mutation to be transmitted to a subsequent generation, it must take place in the
reproductive germ cells or their precursors.

No change arising in any other cell of the body can be passed along to later generations. For example, an embryo's eye may depart from its original form by being subjected to radiation and other similar effects, but this mutation will not manifest itself in subsequent generations.

4. The Infinite Amount of Time Needed for Hypothetical Beneficial Mutations

Even if we assume that mutations were effective and beneficial in complex organs and structures requiring more than one mutation to occur at the same time, mathematicians still say the problem of time is an acute dilemma for Darwinists.

The evolutionist George G. Simpson has performed another calculation regarding the mutation claim in question.

He admitted that in a community of 100 million individuals we assume to produce a new generation every day, a positive outcome from mutations would only take place once every 274 billion years. That number is many times greater the age of the Earth, estimated at 4.5 billion years. (Nicholas Comninellis, Creative Defense Evidence Against Evolution, Master Books, 2001, p. 81)
5. Pleiotropic effect:

Pleiotropy occurs when one gene influences multiple phenotypic traits. Consequently, a mutation in a pleiotropic gene may have an effect on some or all traits simultaneously. This can become a problem when selection on one trait favours one specific version of the gene (allele), while the selection on the other trait favors another allele. The underlying mechanism of pleiotropy in most cases is the effect of a gene on metabolic pathways which contribute toward different phenotypes. 


Darwin & National Geographic on whales evolution !

Whales cause big problems for some persons, because they say that all mammals evolved on land and then moved into the ocean, after they evolved the special features required for underwater life.
They point out that some whales have tiny “legs” that were supposedly once used for walking, but are of no use anymore.

Darwin's writings about the origins of the whale show that the idea that they evolved is based entirely on fantasy and preconception (Just for fun):

"I can see no difficulty in a race of bears being rendered, by natural selection, more aquatic in their structure and habits, with larger and larger mouths, till a creature was produced as monstrous as a whale,"
Human compared to whales

But Darwin produced no concrete evidence in favour of this claim, and the idea that whales evolved from land-dwelling terrestrial mammals has remained a fairy tale.

The tale of “the evolution the whale” by National Geographic magazine:

''The Whale's ascendancy to sovereign size apparently began sixty million years ago when hairy, four-legged mammals, in search of food or sanctuary, ventured into water. As eons passed, changes slowly occurred.
Hind legs disappeared, front legs changed into flippers, hair gave way to a thick smooth blanket of blubber, nostrils moved to the top of the head, the tail broadened into flukes, and in the buoyant water world the body became enormous !!!.''

In those terms, the above account is no different to the fairy tale of the frog turning into a prince

Whale evolution