science2

This is not to say that none of the basic theories that make up the evolutionary system can be subject to
any scientific tests. Many of them can be. We do not hear so much about this because where evolution
can be tested scientifically, it fails. Why don't we hear more about this? One reason is the establishment
bias that systematically discriminates against anyone who dares to question Darwin.

It can be a very poor career decision for a scientist to allow Darwinism to be questioned in any way. To
find out what happened to Dr Richard Sternberg at the Smithsonian Institute click here. Science is
supposed to be about a disinterested search for truth, but as Dr Sternberg found out to his cost, you are
not supposed to allow some questions to be asked. In his own words:
"It is clear that I was targeted for retaliation and harassment explicitly because I failed in an unstated
requirement in my role as editor of a scientific journal: I was supposed to be a gatekeeper turning away
unpopular, controversial, or conceptually challenging explanations of puzzling natural phenomena.
Instead, I allowed a scientific article to be published critical of neo-Darwinism, and that was considered
an unpardonable heresy."

Although Dr Sternberg is not a creationist, and according to him he followed all the stated rules of his
post a teh prestigious Smithsonian institute in Washington, USA, he was in effect forced out of his job at
the museum because he allowed the publication of a peer-reviewed piece of work which was critical of
some aspects of evolution theory. This case sends a clear message out-no dissent tolerated. There is
no other area of science where such an attitude would be tolerated. For further discussion of scientists
abandoning usual scientific practice where evolution is concerned, check Michael Behe's account of the
intolerance of.the evolutionary establishment towards critics of Darwinism.

So, science is wonderful but scientists are fallible human beings like the rest of us and do not always
follow the best traditions and practces of science, and in this context there is adequate evidence to show
that they are not above suppresing views which disagree with heir own. People have reputations and
incomes to protect, and there are such things as pride and jealousy, not to mention fraud.

Mutations:
Mutations are absolutely central to the entire concept of evolution. Darwin admitted he knew nothing of
the means whereby characteristics were passed down from one generation to the next in animal and
plant breeding (he would have known more if he had studied the work of Mendel). We now know that
characteristics of the phenotype (visible form of plant or animal) are determined by the genotype (DNA)
signature in the germ cell nucleus). A full discussion of DNA is beyond the cope of this article, but
essentially it consists of very long molecules which carry information in code. These molecules are coiled
up into chromosomes in the cell nucleus. The code has four letters, ACGT (adenine, cytosine, guanine,
thymine) and when a cell is doing something, whether reproducing itself of producing a protein or
something else requiring information in the cell) the DNA is unravelled and read and the precise
instructions acted on. This process is very complicated and has to be carried out precisely or the product
will be wrong, any significant error leading to disability or death. DNA has 'spell checking' mechanisms
which automatically detect and repair or replace errors.

KEY POINTS: mutations are uncommon, those that occur are usually corrected by automatic check and
correct mechanisms, but those that persist are almost always neutral or harmful. Since we know that the
DNA in a plant or animal's cell determine its phenotypic form by giving very precise instructions to
cellular machinery, it follows that changes to the phenotype can only occur as a result of changes to the
genotype. Darwinian evolution proposes that all living things came from a common ancestor by
innumerable gradual changes. In other words, random alterations in the DNA of the supposed
organisms. How can we apply the scientific process to this question? Simple � we study random
mutations. Since these are quite uncommon, and since all organisms from man down to the humble fruit
fly (Drosophila Melanogaster) have DNA check and repair mechanisms, we are a long time waiting to
see DNA mutations, so we can speed up the process by radiation or drugs, or even by breeding some
types of animal or plant which are more likely to undergo mutations. There are some naturally occurring
human models, for example Xeroderma Pigmentosum, an inherited condition in which normal DNA
repair does not proceed normally due to mutation damaging the genes that code for it.