Refuting evolutionism- "Waiting for Two Mutations"

In an attempt to refute Dr Behe's "Edge of Evolution", a peer-reviewed paper refutes the premise of accumulating genetic accidents- that is if said accidents need to be in specific places to make some difference in an evolutionary sense.

The paper is titled Waiting for Two Mutations: With Applications to Regulatory Sequence Evolution and the Limits of Darwinian Evolution by Rick Durrett and Deena Schmidt.

I say it refutes evolutionism- the premise that the diversity of living organisms owe their collective common ancestry to some unknown population(s) of single-celled organisms via an accumulation of genetic accidents- ie the current theory of evolution.

That is because news genes require a binding site within its regulatory sequence. Not only that it needs to have a promoter, repressor and if more than one copy is required, an enhancer is also needed.

Now if you have read the paper you would have read how difficult it is just to get ONE specified mutation.

With a new gene there are quite a few specified mutations which have to take place just to get that new gene transcribed.

There just isn't enough time in this universe to evolve the capacity to use a new gene- that is in the given evolutionary scenario.

And even then there isn't any guarantee that the new gene will stay intact enough to be of any use once all the regulatory sequences are in place.

So why do I reject the theory of evolution? Science has all but demonstrated it is a hopeless concept and needs to be thoroughly revised.

Yes, marriage is a right!

OK I found the following which proves I was wrong:

Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

Article 16:

1- Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

2- Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

3- The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.-

So now all that has to be done is to change those rights to include same sex, animals and whatever else someone wants to marry. The above does not appear to exclude marrying more than one person at a time or being married to more than one person at a time. IOW the polygamy laws are illegal.

Is "marriage" a "right"? (off topic)

Same sex couples are now placing adds in the classified sections of newspapers- namely "lost and found" as in "I have lost my right* to marry the person I love."

Since when did marriage become a "right"?

If it is then how about the "right" to marry or be married many people at the same time?

How about the "right" to marry children?

And what about the "right" to marry another type of animal?

Is there a "right" to redefine words to suit one's needs?


* entitlement for no other reason than being alive