I am a biology student at Temple University and I have
conducted an NSF funded systematics project for the order
Hymenoptera at the American Museum of Natural History. My
question is why is the scientific community so convinced of
evolution? There are very few publications concerning
evolution at the molecular or biochemical level. Most
scientists are baffled at how such molecular systems such
as blood clotting actual evolved in a step by step manner.
It looks to me like many of the molecular inter workings all
needed to be there simultaneously for the end product to
function properly. The biosynthesis of AMP is just as
baffling. How could that have happened in a step by step
fashion? You can speculate, but no evolutionist has the
answer. So if you can not explain how the most nitty gritty
machines of life "molecules" learned to function in the
intricate ways that they do why are you so certain that
everything evolved? Science is looking at the details. All
science textbooks I have read have relayed very little
evidence of evolution at the molecular level. They just say
it happened. Since Darwinian evolution has published very
few papers concerning molecular evolution it should perish.
Systematics addresses genetic similarities between species,
but it does not address exactly how those genetic
differences and similarities came to be. There maybe fossils
and genes, but you need more than this. I am not convinced
of evolution, but still choose to educate myself in what it
teaches and believes. How do scientists explain how even the
slightest mutation in the human genome is highly detrimental
most of the time? If even the slightest change occurs in our
genome it is oftentimes fatal. Believing that this mechanism
lead to all the species we see today takes a great deal of
faith.For instance if even one step of the blood clotting
process were disturbed the effects would be disastrous.
Also, why does evolution leave out mathematical statistics
of how each mutation arose. TPA a component of blood
clotting has 4 domains. If we attempted to shuffle the genes
for these four domains the odds of getting all four domains
together is 30,000 to the fourth power, and that is just for
TPA! Calculating mutation rates and the odds of getting
certain genes to match up perfectly for the ultimate
function shows us that it takes more faith to believe that
we evolved from primordial slime. The earth has had
thousands of lightning bolts hit it every year and we have
not seen life spawn from molecules. If evolution happened we
would see it reoccuring time and time again from the bottom.
Why have we not seen it, because conditions have not been
perfect? I do not deny adaptation within species, but this
is far different than the assumptions of macro evolution. If
an evolutionist can challenge my arguments I would gladly
like to hear your rebuttal. Publications for molecular
evolution use many words such as "unleashed". How was it
unleashed, what were the step by step mechanisms that you
can say for certain occurred, leaving macro leapages out of
the picture? You see fossils, but you have no detailed
explanations as to how one may have turned into the other at
the molecular level. If you can not explain it at the
molecular level you have nothing to base your assumptions
on. Also all the breeds of dogs are very different from one
another and some of their skeletal structures look
unrelated. The different types of dogs that you see arrived
through intelligent interaction, not evolutionary processes.
Change occurs in nature to a limited extent. That is all.
Sincerely, Carissa Shipman
