This is part of the third program in the Palmers’ series on understanding design in nature:
Important Note: The mutations we discuss in this session are the random mutations that Neo-Darwinists claim to be the driving force of macro-evolution. There is increasing evidence that in fact most mutations aren’t completely random, but are directed to specific areas of the genome where changes can stimulate adaptation. This is additional evidence for design, not random processes.
Group discussion questions are available here.
You may also wish to see:
New introduction to intelligent design at YouTube Part 1. Part 1 begins with the basic concepts of Darwinian Evolution. Darwin’s theory related to heredity, but the science behind genetics was a mystery in his day. Darwin’s assumptions about heredity have proven to be mistaken.
New introduction to intelligent design at YouTube, Part 2: Molecular biology Part 2 introduces the foundational concepts of Intelligent Design. Evidence from molecular biology over the past 60 years completely upends Darwinism.
Part 2 of “Introduction to intelligent design”: Recognizing Design, Part 1 Part 2 applies the core concepts of irreducible complexity and functional coherence to one of the most important functions in each cell – energy production.
Differential accumulations of mutations can produce microevolution but are incapable of producing macroevolution. That is because DNA doesn’t determine biological form. The only thing DNA determines with respect to biological form is whether or not it will develop properly.
Given the nature of transcription and translation, it is genetically IMPOSSIBLE for differential accumulations of mutations to produce macroevolution.
Want to know what the problem is? One letter of the alphabet.
Micro evolution
Macro evolution
Because of the substitution of “a” for “I” it is so easy to believe it is easy for one to turn into another. In other words, we are easily led.
But the evidence supporting this claim is zilch and there is plenty of evidence to believe it is impossible.
Yet, here at UD we play the game as if this is what Evolution is.
No, they are right on except they are very limited and form the science of genetics. Nothing to do with Evolution.
When will we ever learn?
Aside: the OP switches back and forth from OOL to DNA based evolution. Maybe the authors of these videos did not realize what they were doing. The descriptions are a little incoherent.
A basis for discussion on Evolution.
I wrote the following analysis of the impasse that exists in the Evolution debate over 15 years ago. Basically the two sides talk pass each other. Here is the comment and it focuses on the distinctions that have to be made.
https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/the-argument-from-incredulity-vs-the-argument-from-gullibility/#comment-40952
This was in response to a commenter who called himself “Great Ape.” I have often commented that he was the only honest Darwinist I had ever seen. He has not commented here in over 10 years but must be someplace because he said he was young.