Evolution-Section 1

* Note.1: don't forget to check Home page!
* Note.2: if you detected typos, mistakes in context, or any vagueness/ anything not understable/ anything not clear/any confusion, tell that in comments pls.

## Content

I looked from afar .. It is the same scientific hall .. I love this place because of the hologram .. It is the thing that I like most here .. I hope that today’s show will have a hologram show.

We entered and it seemed that if everyone was waiting .. seems that we are late, buddy .. I can see this in the face of Adam .. I looked at everyone with an apology and advanced with you to our seats.

Adam said to the attendees:
Forgive our tow friends .. it seems that they have many other trips to other than our 'world' .. anyways..right now,we will discuss one of the most difficult questions in the world .. I hope that you have prepared mentally for it .. Our question simply says .. Are these creatures and animals need to be created by someone .. or have they evolved from each other through time?this is a question that has caused so much inconvenience in the scientific and religious circles ... debates, lows, and highs ... all for the sake of finding a firm answer to it .. today .. we are all here together ... to answer this question.

A red light lit up and a man with long white hair with baldness at the front of the head .. This was the biologist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck who stood with his tall body and elegant clothes saying:

I spent my life noticing living creatures and writing about them ... and they may appear outwardly different for anyone who looks at thdm ... however, they are all alike..all of them have many basic qualities..the minor characteristics are the thing that differs them..I also noticed that the more complex the organisms became, the more perfect it becomes .. And the human being is the most perfect .. I concluded that there may be a natural mechanism by which simple beings transform into more complex beings over time .. Yes, there must be a natural explanation for the transformation of all these similar beings into other being biologically.. It does not require a miraculous intervention .

Adam said to him:
What is this natural mechanism? Did you know it?

Lamarck looked at him calmly and said:

Yes .. and it is not a single mechanism .. but three mechanisms .. I will list it to you in the simplest possible terms .. The first mechanism is that organisms mutate into each other by crossbreeding .. When reproduction occurs between two different types of animals, they produce a third different new species .. Thus, new animals are always produced from intermarriage of known old animals.

"Lamarck" kept a little silent, then he said:

The second mechanism is compatibility with the environment .. This beautiful, innocent environment in which we live shows that it has a huge impact force on creatures .. When this environment changes any change ..it obliges the organisms to change, so they correspond to it .. in a simpler statement .. when The environment changes, the organism get affected, so it changes some of its attributes until it is compatible with this changed environment.. Then when this organism -whose characteristics have changed- reprodiced .. its new acquired characteristics that it acquired will be transmitted to its offspring .. a change after a change ..and a new traits accumulate on other traits .. and with time, new beings are produced with new, sophisticated traits .

Then he kept quiet again and continued:

The last mechanism is the use and non-use..There are members/organs/limbs that the organism uses continuously and it is strengthened and evolves to fit more with this use .. and when this organism -whose "limbs/organs/members" have evolved from much use- reproduces,its offspring inherit these advanced organs .. thus, organisms that have sophisticated organs -that wasnt that effecient in their ancestors- exists now.

Adam said:
Can you explain by some examples?

"Lamarck" said:

As for crossbreeding ... we have Mule ... come by horse mating with donkey .. and we have Whalephin .. mating whale with Dolphin .. There are many other examples of a variety of new animals that came from old animals .. As for the mechanism of environmental impact, we have birds that do not fly Like ducks and geese .. their ancestors were flying in the past .. But their grandchildren apparently lived in a environment witj enough food so they no longer needed to fly to get food .. And gradually with the time, the offspring of them became unable to fly .. Another example is the lizards .. Some of them lived on difficult ground and became crawling All the time .. With time, its limbs disappeared.

Lamark sighed and said:
As for the last mechanism, the frequent use and the non-use of organs .. We have giraffes .. Their ancestors were short-necked .. They only eat from the short trees that their short necks could reach.. And suddenly a change occurred in the environment that caused a lack of short trees around..so they started to stretch their necks trying to reach the tall trees.
Gradually with time and repeated use and continuous attempts to raise their necks, their necks extended to the length that we see today in giraffes.

Here two red lights lit in two different places .. a light at the famous biologist and geologist with a thick white beard ,"Charles Darwin" and another light with a biologist and anthropologist "Alfred Russell Wallace" who had a thick white beard also .. both of them are confused who stands .. Adam laughed and said:

You can stand together .. It seems that the opinion you provide has been reached by both of you at the same time .. Mr. Darwin can speak first and let Mr. Wallace continue after him.

We looked at "Darwin" .. this is the man who sparked widespread controversy in the world after his death .. Why did he raise all this controversy? Let's see what he has ... Darwin said calmly:

Mr. Lamarck spoke about the mechanisms by which evolution is taking place ... and I agree with him in all of them .. But he thought that the organism is the one who develops from within itself to conform to its environment .. as if the organism is the one who seeks to change and conform and is the one who seeks from within to be more perfect, sophisticated and compatible with his environment .. But what I discovered is that the organism never created anything inside it that makes it move on its own to become compatible with its environment .. Rather, this compatibility occurs randomly without any internal drive .. via a blind random mechanism called natural selection .

Everyone kept silent, waiting for what Darwin would say .. he continued:

Natural selection means survival of the fittest in this life .. and death or extinction to the lowest .. This is the rule of life .. For example, if some giraffes' ancestors necks got longer due to repeated use, as Lamark said .. these ancestors with long necks when living with the rest of Ancestors with short necks , those long necked will have an evolutionary advantage that makes them more suitable for life.and with time, the ancestors with short necks become extinct and the long-necked ancestors remain .. This is the engine that drives evolution .. The election of nature for those fit to live in .. Not the desire of the creature itself to change and correspond to nature .. In other words .. the ancestors of giraffes didnt motivate themselves to be long-necked giraffes .. but, when their neck was prolonged by repeated use ..they were elected and retained by nature ... and short necked ones got extinct.

Darwin then said as if he remembered something:

There are many other examples and intuitive .. birds prefer the taste of red bugs than green bugs,so they eat red bugs more .. With time, the delicious red bugs becomes extinct and green bugs lives because they are more fit to survive .. elephants with ivory tusk that humans hunt for their tusks becomes extinct with time and other elephants remain .... and so on..from every group of organisms, nature elects who is more fit to survive .. and the rest die ... There is no desire from the creature itself to do anything.

Darwin continued:
The shocking truth that I finally drew is that all these creatures that we see around us ... all without exception have evolved over time by mechanisms of Lamarck and natural selection from simple single-celled creatures to simple marine creatures then to fish then to amphibians and then to reptiles .. then to Birds and mammals ... only by the mechanisms of Lamarck and the natural selection ... One of these mammals developed into two branches ... one developed into monkeys ... the other developed into a human being.

Adam said:
Did this lead you to disbelief in God?

Darwin said:
For me, God no longer interferes with creation .. I no longer know exactly where God is .. maybe he is the one who created the universe .. and maybe not.

Here Wallace spoke, and he seemed calmer and said:

I also had my own trip to the Amazon and the islands of Indonesia .. I met Darwin in a common research,but each of us was searching in it alone .. I was on one of the islands searching and suddenly had a severe fever .. During that fever the idea fell into my mind .. survival of the fittest. I knew this idea would explain the diversity of all beings.

So I wrote my paper, completed it, and sent it to Darwin.

Darwin said:
When I saw the research, I was very surprised .. "Wallace" discovered the same thing that I discovered .. And our stand together today reminds me of our stand in the conference that was held for us to present our ideas for the first time .. he suggested to me to change the word "natural selection" to the word "survival of the fittest", because it is more accurate, and i agreed to this.

Wallace looked at him and said:
But I differed with "Darwin" radically in the matter of human .. This high intelligence and capabilities that a human have completely denies that he has evolved from a lower ancestor with a lower mind .. Survival does not need all this high intelligence and mental capabilities .. one tenth of this intellegence and mind was enough for him to survive better than all animals .. My opinion is that there is a superpower that designed the human being and guided the evolution in creatures and controlled what happened to them wisely and with a read plan .. Darwin went too far to the way he equaled the supreme monkeys and some Africans! The africans, who in his view are still carrying some features of the monkeys .. And he predicted with the same logic of survival for the fittest that the white human races over time will annihilate these "barbaric" African races completely!

A red light near them lit up .. This was the German biologist and geneticist August Weizmann and he seemed wise with his medium white beard and the small glasses he puts on. Weizmann said:

Excuse me, sirs .. Perhaps this talk had value in the past, but most of this talk -after the works of Gregor Mendel and my work in the field of genetics- turned out to be complete nonsense with no scientific value at all.

"Darwin" and "Wallace" paid attention to what the German says, and we noticed with them that he continued:

There are two types of cells in this world .. Germ Cells (Gamits) and Somatic Cells .. Germ cells are the only ones that contain the genetic information of the object .. This information alone is only transmitted from the parents to their children .. As for the Somatic cells (all physical cells) , all what happens In it during the life of the organism has literally no value and never moves to the offspring .. This is a hereditary law ..

I mean, no matter how long the giraffe's neck stretches and becomes longer during its life, it never transmits this long neck to its offspring ..exactly like a blacksmith who works in smithy and grows his muscles from this work... Do he pass this acquired muscles strenghth to his children biologically? ... what is transmitted to children is only what the germ cells carry ..And to prove this, I did an experiment in which I cut off the tails of experimental mice for tens of generations, but every time,the new mice were born with natural tails and the length of their tails did not decrease by one centimeter ... the story of inheriting the acquired traits is a great myth .. and this invalidates two of the mechanisms that you mentioned for evolution .. the mechanism of environmental impact On the object .. and the mechanism of use and non-use .. So whatever the organism used or did not use it and no matter how the organ changed, elongated or disappeared, this is never passed on to the offsrding.

Weizmann continued:

You also mentioned the hybridization/crossbreeding mechanism ... that produces new organisms ... and you assumed that it was responsible for much of the diversification that we see in living organisms around us ... but unfortunately this was also shown to be waste when it was introduced to genetics .. yes two types of organisms may reproduce to produce a hybrid type whose traits differ from the parents .. But this hybrid type is always sterile AND DONT have the ability to give birth or to re-produce offspring .. And his life ends with his death .. His type ends with his death .. He does not create a type or specimen of beings .. The hybrid animal always comes weaker than his parents. Mules are always slower than their fathers the horses.. I mean, natural selection will not benefit anything from this hybrid organism.. let alone that it is already sterile.

Looking at Lamarck, Adam said:

So the three mechanisms presented by Lamarck for evolution have fallen ... I mean, there are no longer mechanisms by which creatures are diversified .. There is nothing that will originally diversify for the natural selection to choose . Does this mean now that the theory of evolution is fallen scientifically?

A red light illuminated in one of the corners of the hall, and everyone turned to him .. A man with a short beard, fine hair, and sunken eyes .. This was one of the first genetics scientists "Hugo de Vries" .. He spoke and said:

We thought that Darwin's theory really fell completely genetically, but my discovery came and revived it again .. I discovered that there is a change taking place in Germ cells .. a change that gives new characteristics to the organism ... a change that an organism transfers into its offspring ... a change called mutations.

De Vries said:

From my experiences on the evening primrose .. I found that there are generations in which there are individuals who are completely different from the rest of the flowers .. their shape and color is different .. i isolated them and made them intermarry with each other .. and their offspring also come different like them .. so, these individuals who were differnt from the rest ihe generation, transfered their traits to their offspring .. This made me continue extensive experiments until I discovered mutations .. Yes gentlemen .. Mutations .. They are changes that occur in the germ cells of the organism not in the somatic cells .. changes that is inherited thro geberation.. This is the answer ... the genetic answer to Mechanism of evolution.

A red light lit up in the corner of the hall, and the biologist and genetist Thomas Morgan, a man with a small chin and sharp eyes, rose up. Morgan said:

From my experiments also on millions of individuals from the red-eye Drosophila Fly, i suddenly discovered the emergence of one fly that is different from the rest .. a white-eyed fly .. i isolated it and made it mate with a normal red-eyed fly .. the result was the emergence of a generation in which more than a thousand red-eyes fly and only three flies are white-eyed .. I continued to conduct experiments in this regard until I succeeded in discovering more than twenty mutations in which the characteristics of the organism changed every time and it transfer them to its offspring.

Morgan referred to the hologram ,and a thing that looked like a rosary appeard,so he said:

Also, I discovered that there is something that can be imagined as beads holding on to the long string of DNA .. Each bead expresses a characteristic/trait in the organism .. These beads are called "genes" .. I knew that the mutation can occur in a gene among the organism’s genes, so the gene trait alone changes.. Or perhaps more than one mutation occurs in more than one gene, so several traits change, so a organism with completely different traits than first organism is produced..and by time, more random mutations occur so the traits of all organisms changes gradually.

Morgan enthusiastically continued:
The mutation that produces distorted and unfit traits for life is abolished by natural selection, such as a wolf being born with a blind eye .. And the small mutation that changes some traits but does not affect the survival of the organism is not even seen by natural selection as if a wolf is born in a different color .. While the beneficial mutation that produces a more valid organism for its environment.. Natural selection keeps this kind of mutation, preserves it, and inherits it for generations, like a wolf born with a more thick fur in a cold area .. natural selection is not a smart or specific process .. never ..

Rather, it is blind .. It works by the rule of survival of the fittest .. And death for those without it .. Whoever nature gives advantages to, remains and forms new specimen .. And whoever nature gives imperfections to,dies .. And who the nature does not giv something , remains the same .. Thus all beings could consist of each other by evolution, through the mechanism of mutation and natural selection.

And now we heard claps from some of the seated .. The theory almost fell, but rose again strongly .. very beautiful .. Morgan felt a little proud and then continued with scientific enthusiasm:

Mutations may be simple ... replacing a letter by other letter in its place in the DNA .. for example, C instead of T... or perhaps deleting a whole gene ... or copying a gene twice .. and many more sorts of mutation .. The more messing with the genetics of the organism, the more different the resulting organism be..

The attendees began to turn mentally toward the theory of evolution .. But it seems we have more opinions .. As a red light illuminated among the seats, a Russian geneticist, “Alexander Sergeyevich Serebrovsky.” :

Unfortunately, there is a hereditary law that we discovered recently that drops this new mechanism of evolution with mutations that was suggested by Mr. de Vries and Mr. Morgan .. excuse me .. it does not drop it .. rather it limitizes it.

I relaxed on my chair and put my hand on my chin .. See what we have this time? I started enjoying this ups and downs of the theory.

The Russian said:
The Gene Basin -as I called it- ,this term, when they later transferredfrom me to Europe, they called it the gene pool.. and let me explain to you its meaning .. you all know that the living organisms have a known classification for it ..Kingdom - phylum - Class - Family - Genus - Species. Each Genus of living organisms has its own (genetic basin) or its own imaginary (genetic box) .. that we put in it all the genes that define the characteristics and traits of this Genus of organisms including all the Species in it .. mutations can occur as they wish within this genetic box only and they cannot cross it .. And as Morgan said, "If the mutations were harmful, natural selection would abolish them ... and if they were beneficial and distinct mutations ... natural selection would choose them and pass them on to the offspring, the offspring that will have completely different traits than parents .. so different from the parents to the way they can no longer intermarriage with the rest of the Genus members .. They now cannot intermarry except with their lookalike organisms with mutations .. at this time, these intermarried organisms that have mutations becomes separated from the Genus.. and we call them Species .. so they become a new species within the Genus..also, naturally, every Genus contains tens or hundreds of species that resulted by mutations ..

the genetic law that we discovered says that mutations have limits that can never be crossed .. These limits are the boundaries of the genetic basin of Genus .. limits that mutations can never cross it to reach the family, class, or phylum.

Adam said:
Sorry I did not understand this point .. Can you explain it with examples?

Alexander said:
The Genus of the horse, for example, contains several Species that include all the horses and donkeys in this world .. It contains the domestic horse, the wild horse, the domestic donkey and the zebra .. The genus of horse in ancient times had no variety and it was expressed by one animal which is the ancestor of all the current horses and current donkeys ...an animal that was called Equus .. This ancient ancestor had a genetic basin that contained all of its horse traits .. Once upon a time there were some beneficial mutations that produced offspring slightly different from the predecessor horse Equus ... smaller and less powerful offspring ... offspring They are called donkeys .. they can no longer mate with members of the ancient ancestor of the Equus .. they can no longer mate EXCEPT with their lookalike donkeys .. and thus they became a single species called donkey .. but still it is inserted under the Genus of the horse.

Then Alexander said:
Then other mutations occurred for the same ancient ancestor Equus, which produced an offspring with different traits that only mate with themselves called wild horses .. and these became a separate Species called "wild horses" .. included also under the Genus of the horse .. also beneficial mutations occurred in donkeys themselves and produced different offspring with different traits that are called zebras who became a third Species called Zebra .. which is also included under the Genus of the horse .. Thus, the mutations continued to occur in the ancestor of the old horse (The Genus), to produce new species..and they occur in new species so they produce a sub-species ... All that results from these mutations will ultimately remain an animal with horse traits.a horse, donkey, zebra, wild horse, Eurasian, African, Indian, or Persian donkey..etc.all have "horsy" traits .. and it is genetically not allowed for mutations that occurred in the ancestor of the horse in the past -no matter how extreme those mutations were- to result in anything other than a oragnism under horse Genus.. for example it cant result in a dog or in an elephant .. I mean, the horse will not exceed its race to another race .. The horse remains a horse no matter how long or short it has been .. No matter what mutations have occurred in it .. This is a hereditary law .. the dog's ancestor .. there will be many mutations in it and will turn into an Australian dog, a polar wolf, an African wolf, a fox, a jackal..etc.
but it will not turn into anything other than a organism under the dog Genus .. its will not exceed to another Genus.. this is all that the mutations can do .. but it will not turn a lizard into a wolf for example. it wont make cats produce a dog .. They will not do that even after a million years.

Morgan told him protesting:
Sir, but the theory of evolution did not say that the horse turned into an elephant .. nor that the lizard turned into a wolf .. Rather, it said that the horse’s ancestor, the dog’s ancestor, the cat’s ancestor and the ancestor of the bear .. they all came from the ancestor of mammals .. and said that the birds came from reptiles .. while The ancestors of mammals and the ancestor of reptiles both came from the ancestor of amphibians .. who came from the ancestor of fish that came -along with ancestor of the vertebrates and the ancestor of coral reefs- from one ancestor and so on until we reach Grandma LUCA, that all creatures came out from.

Alexander said:
Sir I have set an example of a horse to explain the meaning of the word genetic pool and you did not let me continue my words to explain how this law decreases the authority of the theory of evolution completely .. The theory of evolution says that one day, there was an individual of fish evolved into an amphibian that became the ancestor of all amphibians .. I mean, there was an ordinary fish that hatched its eggs one day, and an organism with amphibious characteristics emerged from it ... an organism that is the father of all amphibians ... resulting from a mutation of that happened inside the eggs of that fish .. The theory of evolution also says that one of the reptiles evolved into a bird that became the ancestor of all birds .. I mean, one day there was a crawling animal that spawned an egg from which an organism with avian traits came out and became the ancestor of all birds .. All this is against the law of the genetic pool .. The fish, whatever mutations will happen to it, will still stay a fish .. it will not exceed its own genetic pool to Amphibious genetic pool for example ... means that two feet wont grow for them to run by on the shore and become an amphibious animal!

The crawling creature -no matter what mutations happen in it- will remain crawling .. It will not exceed its own genetic pool to the birds genetic pool .. it will neber grow wings niether its scales will turn into feathers..hence, it will not become a bird one day.

every Genus of organisms has its own genetic pool.. And we have hundreds of thousands of Genus' ... I mean hundreds of thousands of genetic pools in our world..

certainly many mutations occurs in everygenome pool of them ,so hundreds of species have been produced inside it, but mutations never get outside the genetic pool to enter another genetic pool of another genus ... I mean, they do not encroach upon each other.

he concluded:
in the end, the theory of evolution can explain how hundreds of species emerged from one Genus by mutations and natural selection.. but it cannot explain how the different ancestors of organisms themselves came to the world .. these ancestors did not evolve from anything before them with mutations .. because the mutations cannot transform one genus into another.

There was a kind of hum among the crowd .. The hum of people discussing .. But a red light was illuminated somewhere and the famous British biologist Richard Dawkins stood up and he said:

This dilemma in which the theory of evolution had fallen in is not actually a dilemma .. Mutations are types .. some of which do not actually come outside of the genetic pool .. but some of them can come outside.

Alexander said:
It is impossible to get out .. This is a hereditary law.

Adam said:
This debate is forbidden .. Speak with proven examples and experiments.

"Dawkins" and the Alexander kept quiet. Then Alexander quietly said:

I will tell the subject in another way to make it easier to understand more .. Every living being in this world has specific known genes .. Each gene expresses a trait of this object .. Beautiful .. Now evolution says that simpler beings have evolved into more complex beings ..

for example simple aquatic organisms with simple genes that describe their simple structure .. They say that one day, primitive photovoltaic cells grown to them and becamr a seed that then evolved into eyes that can see .. These simple aquatic cells .. How these photovoltaic cells got added to them suddenly??

Their genetic pool had only their genes with ONLY their information...How was new genees that contain information describes complex structures such as photovoltaics or eyes got added to it? Where did these new genes come with the new information? From mutations? Mutations do not create things from non-existence. They just mess with what already exists .. Mess with previously existing information, so that distorted information comes out with results that may be useful or may be not .. But it cannot create new information .. Mutations cannot innovate NEW information.

Mutations will never give ability to see to a organism that could not see .. The mutations will never grow wings and feathers for a reptile with scales that walk on the ground and cannot fly .. The mutations are not a magic wand.

Alexander continued:
The feathers,for example, need new genes with new information .. The wings need new genes with new information .. The simplest organism in the world is LUCA .. It contained 355 genes .. human contains almost 20 thousand genes .. So in order for LUCA to evolve over time to a human being, entirely new genes should be added to it, almost 19 thousand genes.. Where did it get these new genes?from where does it get the new information? Evolutionists must search for something other than mutations to explain the variety OF GENUS'ES. Something that can produce new genes from nowhere. Genes that contain detailed information about the new formation that will appear in the organism. And I will say it again ..maximum ability of mutations is to tamper with existing genes ... it does not add any new genes with new information ... mutations work inside the gene pool itself ... do not work outside it.

Adam said:
There is a solution to this dilemma .. that the first ancestor ... the grandma "LUCA" has alrrady all the genes of all living organisms .. its genetic pool was including genes of all living organisms .. and mutations continued to occur in them as they like .. and every time it produces a new organism that activates group of the genes included in the great genetic pool of "LUCA".

Alexander said to him:

This is a fallen hypothesis, of course .. Every organism in this world has only the genes that carry its traits only.

the single celluar organism will not have genes that describes the fins of the fish, the bear's eyes, the wings of the bird, or the human brain. it will contain only the genes that describes the one cell only ..

also the fish does not have stored genes describing the wings of the bat and the shell of the turtle .. the fish has only the genes of the fish .. this is a genetic law .. so you will not find a single scientist who accepts this hypothesis .. because this will make the explaination of the origin of life more difficult for them .. They are literally struggling to try to prove that grandma "LUCA" -with all complexity of its genes that describes ONLY one cell- has come out from nothing by coincidence!!
Do you want to make all the genes of living things inside it too? You will not find a single experimental scientist who accepts this .. Then this is an assumption with no evidence .. And here we do not accept the assumptions in this discussion as you said from the beginning.

A new red light came out there and a man who is bald on the front of his forehead ... "Herman Muller" .. The geneticist and Nobel laureate ... He said to them:

Regardless of the beautiful hypothesis that you presented .. Regardless of the law of the genetic pool that puts a strict limits to evolution .. scientists should not tire themselves in trying to prove that mutations can be the cause of diversity, creativity and beauty that we see in creatures .. This is nonsense. Mutations are errors. Only random errors .. occur during the process of copying the natural DNA that occurs in cells .. But the errors here are very few .. 1 in every 10,000 copies, for example .. Because there is a mechanism included in the genes themselves whose job is correct Errors automatically during copying .. a very complicated and proficient mechanism .. There are about a million errors and a million repairs per day .. Despite this mechanism, there are a few errors that manage to escape .. These are called mutations ..they are harmful, not specified, originally corrupt, destruction makers..messes around in the genetic material and changing in it ... and because it occurs in the genetic material, it is transferred to the offspring.

Muller fell silent and then said:
I did experiments on Drosophila flies as well .. And I noticed that when we expose flies to high levels of X-rays, the rate of mutations that occur is 150 times higher than normal .. This allowed me to study mutations very broadly .. I raised 900 generations of Flies .. Millions of mutations happened .. After all this, all the generations that i got were generations of deformed flies that is unable to get out even from the test bowl .. And if they get out, their fate will be death .. After all this I did not get a single beneficial mutation .. And I have conducted the experiment over and over for years and years .. and always get the same result .. that mutation is something originally harmful .. And it is not correct for scientists to make it a mechanism for evolution only because they do not find any other mechanism.

Dawkins told him:
Rather, mutations can be beneficial .. And when they are beneficial, natural selection keeps them and inherits them to the offspring .. There are examples of famous beneficial mutations that are not only beneficial but also add new traits of the organism that were not present in its parents and ancestors.. This indicates that mutations can create information New.

Adam said:
You should speak with examples, sir.

Dawkins said:
Well we have many examples of beneficial mutations .. the blind cave fish for example .. Its eyes in the past were prone to collision and damage greatly due to the darkness of the caves .. Therefore it was useful for her to replace this eye with normal tissue .. A mutation occurred and led to the conversion of her eye to tissue ... it became a fish with a dark tissue instead of the eyes .. This is a useful mutation .. Also the example Darwin noticed .. Madeira Island beetles .. Because it lives on a stormy island .. The air always collides with her wings and throws it to the sea .. When a mutation occurs to them, It makes them without wings .. so their chance of survival becomes greater .. We also have bacteria in which a mutation occurred and made them resistant to the antibiotics .. Here we see the emergence of a new generation of bacteria more powerful and oppressive and is not affectef by antibiotics .. and many others.

Muller replied:
This proves that the mutations are destructive, as I said .. even when the evoluionists wanted to come up with examples of beneficial mutations .. they could only come up with examples of destructive mutations that had kind of good useful results. . What happened in the cave fish is a destruction of the eye .. and in its case it turns out That this destruction was beneficial to her .. also the mutation destroyed the wings of beetles and its just turned out that this destruction was beneficial to them .. The antibiotic-resistant bacteria have been shown to have sacrificed their ribosomes because the antibiotic was destroying it by attaching to the ribosome .. so it sacrificed the ribosome and started living without ribosome .. however,that resulted in it escaping from the antibiotics .. these examples that dawkins mentioned are the best examples we have of beneficial mutations .. and it is sufficient only to explain the diversity within one genus still.. not more than that .. the fish is still a fish and will remain a fish .. the beetle is still a beetle and the bacteria are still bacteria of the same genus .. when we want examples of mutations that add new information .. we are not looking for minor changes .. we are looking for radical major changes .. changes that can transform an organism into another organism .. for example, mutations do not result in, complex and strange organs such as luminous cells in the illuminated fish ... or echo monitoring cells that works like the sonar in dolphins ... or radar system in the bats ... or elctric cells in electro fishes and electric eel, or variable pigment cells that make an organism change its color as in chameleons .. in short ..If we speak genetically, the mutations cannot add new organ to the organism. This is only found in comics and science fiction stories.

Dawkins said:
When you look at a mosquito ... and you find that it has been able to develop immunity to pesticides in only 40 years ... is this not a evolution that happens before our eyes?

Muller's replied:
No ... isn't the mosquito still a mosquito? Did it turn into anything else?

Dawkins said with challenge:
Evolution needs millions of years .. It is only in 40 years that this change has occurred.

Muller said:
It does not mean when this mosquito has changed a little now that after a million years it will turn into an elephant .. mutations have a limit that does not exceed them..the problem is not the amount of change that occurs..but the problem is in the type of change..and the type of change that all of them present is the type contrary to the type they need to prove their theory by, they use examples such as bacterial and mosquito immunity .. They use them to convince the public that simple, single-celled organisms have evolved over millions of years to eventually result in lions, elephants, and dinosaurs ... and that a microbe can be transformed in some way into a human being.

Then Muller said:
On the contrary of the examples that you mentioned .. 99% of the mutations are mutations that cause diseases .. 99% without exaggeration ..like Cancer .. Anemia .. Alzheimer .. Diabetes .. The disease of hypertrichosis,.. Dawn's syndrome ... the Mediterranean fever .. migraine headache .. dwarfism .. albinism..and many others .. It is not scientifically correct that we take a mechanism which 99% of its results are harmful destructive and 1% are useful destructive too, and adopt it as a mechanism for all the enormous diversities of living creatures around us .. If we really think with logic .. These mutations are supposed to guide the evolutionary stream towards the relapse and to extinction and not to the evolution and improvement!

Then, Muller said in the tone of the one who concludes his words:

This genetic information that is periodically copied in millions in DNA is like the lines that the typewriter prints over and over again .. mutation is a typographical error that occurs during transcription..and it produces distorted lines .. they say that these distorted lines caused all the beautiful variations in the organisms that We see today .. But distortion is not suitable for explaining anything but death .. It is not suitable for explaining beauty and life.

Dawkins said, as if everything was said does not mean: There is a type of mutation called Gene Duplication in which the volume of DNA doubles .. Here is a simple living example of mutations that create new genes.

Mueller said to him:
This is not the addition of a new gene .. This is a copy of an existing gene .. The gene was named X, so it became XX .. Just as two identical copies of a book are affixed to each other next to each other ... You did not create a new book with new information .. It is the same book and information But it is repeated .. as well as all other known mutagenesis mechanisms ..It dosent create any new information .. its all are edits to the current information .. Whatever the type of these edits .. Some mutations are replacemental ..swipes the places of some letters .. Some of them (mutations) cut one part of a gene and part of another gene and add the two parts to each other and become a new gene .. But the information in it is the same as previously found in the two old genes. No new information has been added ... some of them incorporate an existing gene with another existing gene .. Also, they have not brought new .. This is the most mutations can do ... tampering with current existing information.

Dawkins said:
You say that mutations because of their destructive nature and because of the genetic pool law, cannot explain the evolution of a genus to another genus, and the most it can explain is the evolution of the organism that represents the ancestor of the genus to all the variations (the species) that occurred after it within the genus .. so I have a question for you .. these beings that represent the ancestors of each genus .. Where exactly did it come from? If they had not evolved from each other?

Muller said:
You ask about the origins of the ancestors .. and how did these ancestors descend to the world .. if we knew that we have approximately 1000 genus of fish .. 500 genus of amphibians .. and 1100 genus of reptiles .. and 1800 genus of birds .. and 1200 genus Of mammals .. These are 5600 genus of vertebrates alone .. 5600 ancestors colonized land and sea one day .. There were mutations and natural selection for the fittest until there are now about 70 thousand species in vertebrates .. Yes, evolution can explain the diversity of these 5600 to their grandchildren the 70 thousand species... by mutations and natural selection .. but how did these 5600 come to Earth and colonized it? Science has not reached this yet ... One of these 5600 is the human who when he came he became the master of all beings and colonized land, sea and air .. How did he come? Science did not know the truth about this yet .. Note that I only talked about vertebrates now .. I did not talk about the 150 thousand species of insect genus that are currently about a million species of insects .. I did not talk about the plant kingdom, the bacterial kingdom, the algae kingdom, or the fungi kingdom .. Hundreds of thousands of genus that no one knows from where it came to the world .. Did God create it? Some scientists believe this ... their names are the Creationists and they are always against Evolutionists.

Adam said:

I find some creationist scientists trying to reconcile evolution and creation .. They say that the mutations, although their nature originally is destructive and random, The Divine Providence is the one that controls them and directs them to bring us all the diversity and beauty in living organisms .. They call them directed mutations .. directed by God .. and they say that it is God’s way of creation .. He created the "grandma" LUCA and placed in it all the genes of living organisms ... and the divine providence guided those mutations towards producing various new creatures ... and thus all these genuses came ... and then resulted in morr directed mutations that caused all the species ... they say that Divine Providence did not allow any distorted transitional creatures to be formed.

Muller said:
The scientific community refuses to include divine providence in anything ... they believe this is against science.

Adam said:
But they agree with coincidence and absurdity, despite the severity of their impossibility ... Is not belief in divine providence more logical?

Muller said:
This is the orientation of the scientific community in the modern era .. But your hypothesis is genetically and scientifically fallen .. There is no organism that have the information of another being carried inside.. We do not accept the hypotheses in this discussion, especially if they were fallen.

Adam said to him:
Ok..so, as long as there is no evidence that some genus have evolved into another, it is a fictional thing that does not exist.

Dawkins said:
There is evidence, of course. There is much evidence. Did you forget the fossils? Dozens of fossils fill the fossil record ... not fossils of ordinary beings ... but fossils of transitional beings between Classes ... undoubtedly indicate that evolution is a reality like the sun in the the sky.

"Adam" scratched his head, thinking, saying:

Fossils.. Yes .. fossils that are beyond doubt .. This is a beautiful guide .. so be it .. On the occasion of the fossils .. I see that the hologram has prepared a surprise for us .. But we will witness this surprise after a short break .. And make sure that the surprise will answer your question completely.

We looked among the scholars looking for Scorpion but we did not find him .. So we went to that extra room in corner .. We found him sitting there .. He was smoking .. The room was filled with smoke.. So I went to open the window that was overlooking a beautiful scene, i kept enjoying the scene while you were chatting with Scorpion behind me....