Evolutionist Caught Lying for Their Religion
“The truth, indeed, is something that mankind, for some mysterious reason, instinctively dislikes. Every man who tries to tell it is unpopular, and even when, by the sheer strength of his case, he prevails, he is put down as a scoundrel.”
-H. L. Menck
“The exact opposite of what is generally believed is often the truth”
-Jean De La Bruyere 1645-1696
When evolutionist have near full control of education [through courts and political activity] and media they are than allowed to get away with lying for their religion to indoctrinate youth into their system of beliefs. When evolution cannot be criticized, and when the teacher has the intellectual advantage over the student, they are than able to deceive students into believing “proofs” of evolution. Further when schools teach obedience to their higher authority [teachers/scientist the modern high priests of liberalism] uncritical thinking, but accepting and repeating what is told them to believe, the textbooks and when teachers have an aura of high priest or Pope like infallibility. Thus they can, and do lie, and get away with it. Student should be allowed both sides of an issue and be allowed the right to not be lied to. But the evolutionist wont allow this to happen.
A few of the Lies my Teacher Told me
“All the icons of evolution misrepresent the truth, the evidence does not justify the sweeping claims that are made in their name....they should be dead to any informed, rational observer, but they keep coming anyways. Textbooks still carry them. But textbooks are not the main problem. The main problem is the scientific establishments determination to promote evolution in spite of the evidence.”
-Jonathan Wells Zombie Science More icons of Evolution 2017
"Just about everything I taught them was wrong."
-Charles Alexander Time Magazine Senior Science Editor former Science teacher
“we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”
-Harold, Franklin M. (Prof. Emeritus Biochemistry, Colorado State University) The way of the cell: molecules, organisms and the order of life, Oxford University Press, New York, 2001, p. 205
“I don't believe in the evolution of fish to monkeys to men.... It's absolute garbage. It's absolutely irrational garbage...The early men are always drawn like apes, right? Because that fits in the theory we have been living with since Darwin...They set up these idols and then they knock them down. It keeps all the old professors happy in the university. It gives them something to do. I don't know if there's any harm in it except they ram it down everybody's throat. Everything they told me as a kid has already been disproved by the same type of "experts" who made them up in the first place.”
-John Lennon book by journalist David Sheff, All We Are Saying: The Last Major Interview with John Lennon and Yoko Ono (St. Martin's Griffin,
Vestigial Structures
"There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities."
—Horatio Hackett Newman, quoted in The World’s Most Famous Court Trial: The Tennessee Evolution Case (1990), p. 268
Amazingly, evolutionist often claim vestigial structures are proof of evolution. When I was in 7th grade my teacher said “If there is a God, why did he make useless structures” after showing us the appendix was useless [and it must be true its in a science textbook and my teacher would not lie to me] And she said religion is ok, it just does not belong in the science classroom. At the time of Darwin evolutionist though there were 180 vestigial structures in the human body alone. Each one has know been found to have a function.
But since we are not in a classroom, lets apply skepticism to the claims. No one would be able to prove a structure has no function, only that we are ignorant of its function. Many people have been mutilated and had organs taken out to their own harm, by doctors who believed in evolution and vestigial structures. And just because we may be able to live without a structure, does not prove we don't need it, or its some evolutionary leftover. You can live without both your arms and legs, but they have a purpose. But lets assume there is a true vestigial structure. That is no proof of evolution, evolution needs to exspalin the origin of these structures not their failures. Does it disprove creation? Not biblical creation that contained the fall and the curse such as.
. “The existence of functionless ‘vestigial organs’ was presented by Darwin, and is often cited by current biology textbooks, as part of the evidence for evolution. ... An analysis of the difficulties in unambiguously identifying functionless structures and an analysis of the nature of the argument, leads to the conclusion that ‘vestigial organs’ provide no evidence for evolutionary theory.”
-R. Scadding, “Do ‘Vestigial Organs’ Provide Evidence for Evolution?” Evolutionary Theory, Vol. 5, May 1981, p. 173.
"Many of the so-called vestigial organs are now known to fulfill important functions."
—*Encyclopedia Britannica Vo1. 8 (1946 ed.), p. 926.
Appendix
“Darwin was wrong the appendix is a whole lot more than a evolutionary remnant”
-Journal of evolutionary biology aug 2009
“long regarded as a vestigial organ with no function in the human body the appendix is one of the sites where immune responses are initiated”
-Roy Hartenstein Glorier encyclopedia 1998
“An intrigel part of the immune system”
-Gabreille Belz professor and immunologist
We were all told in school the appendix is a evolutionary left over with no function in the human body. Well this is just one of the many lies used to indoctrinate kids in evolution. Here is a great short video on the appendix.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDZJy4z4o5k
It is known in scientific journals and has been for over a half century the appendix is not a useless left over organ.
“There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure."
—William Straus, Quarterly Review of Biology (1947), p. 149
The appendix contains lymphatic tissue and has a role in controlling bacteria entering the intestines. It functions in a similar way to the tonsils at the other end of the alimentary canal, which are known to increase resistance to throat infections, although once also thought to be useless organs. The appendix generates red blood cells before spleen and bone marrow do. In scientific American march 2012 p22 it reads “ your appendix could save your life” because the appendix operates as a safe house for good bacteria see [ Smith et al comparative anatomy and phylogenic distribution of the mammalian cecal appendix journal of evolutionary biology 22 [10] 2009]
“Clostridium difficile is a deadly bacterium frequently encountered in hospitals where patients undergo prolonged treatment with antibiotics. Usually this bacterium does not compete well with the native bacteria of the gut. That’s because many cases of resistance are caused by a ‘scorched-earth’ policy of degrading a receptor the antibiotic needs to latch on to—in this case, enzymes needed to unwind and duplicate DNA. Thus in most cases, ‘super-germs’ are super-wimps (see creation.com/anthrax and creation.com/superbugs).But when patients’ useful native bacteria are depleted, as is the case after several courses of antibiotics, the way is paved for C. difficile to multiply quickly and take over. It is in this period after treatment that patients are in the greatest danger of a recurrence of C. difficile.Now researchers led by Dr James Grendell of Winthrop University-Hospital’s division of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition have found that patients without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of the deadly pathogen than patients who still had their appendix. (I.e. 48% of cases vs 11% of cases respectively.) In the last few years, researchers have shown that the appendix serves as a ‘safe house’ for beneficial bacteria in our gut. This allows them to be restored in the event of depletion (e.g. after a severe gut infection such as cholera)
—see creation.com/appendix3.-The appendix may protect you against Clostridium difficile recurrence, Clinical Gastroenterology and Hepatology 9:1072–1077, 2012
Appendix removal
“appendix removal also increases a persons susceptibility to leukemia, hodkins disease, cancer of the colon, and cancer of the ovaries”
-Walt brown in the beginning p118
Removal of appendix causes increase risk of heart attack [see medicalpress.com 1 june 2011.]
“Thus, although scientists have long discounted the human appendix as a vestigial organ, a growing quantity of evidence indicates that the appendix does in fact have a significant function as a part of the body’s immune system.”
-N. Roberts, “Does the Appendix Serve a Purpose in Any Animal?” Scientific American, Vol. 285, November 2001, p. 96.
“The appendix is useful and in fact promising”
-live scince.com 24 aug 2009
Human coccyx
Exhibit at the American Museum of Natural History in New York
“For example, the coccyx and the two ischium bones of the pelvis together form a tripod that helps to bear the weight of the body and provide balance when a person is seated. As a person leans back, more weight is transferred to the coccyx. The coccyx also serves as an anchor for the attachment of numerous tendons, ligaments, and muscles. Some of these muscles form the hammock-like pelvic floor, which supports various internal organs, especially as we stand upright. Several muscles contribute to bowel and bladder function, including the delaying of defecation and urination—not exactly trivial abilities. The coccyx helps to support the spinal cord as well, serving as an anchor for the filum terminale—a fibrous length of tissue that stretches from the top of the coccyx to the lower part of the spinal cord. Beyond this, the coccyx serves an additional purpose in women—helping to accommodate childbirth. In females, the coccyx is less curved compared to males, so it doesn’t point as far forward, thus making room for a baby’s head to pass through the pelvis. It is more flexible as well, because the movements of the coccyx during labor actually help to enlarge the birth canal.
- Keaton Halley Tailbone “serves no purpose”?New York Museum of Natural History misleads the publicby
Evolutionist notion of bad design in human spines has impeded the development of appropriate treatment of injured backs [see p282 the greatest hoax on earth]
“If you think the “tail bone” is useless, fall down the stairs and land on it. (Some of you may have actually done that—unintentionally, I’m sure!) What happens? You can’t stand up; you can’t sit down; you can’t lie down; you can’t roll over. You can hardly move without pain. In one sense, the sacrum and coccyx are among the most important bones in the whole body. They form an important point of muscle attachment required for our distinctive upright posture (and also for defecation, but I’ll say no more about that)”
-Dr Gary Paker creation Biologist
“That it's uselessness was a concealment of scientific ignorance, not of poor original design.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017
Whale Pelvis Leg Bones
“These pelvic bones perform an important function in copulation.”
-Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017
Indeed it take more than a little imagination to believe a whale walked around based on those small bones. There is no observation of it. These little bones are said to be evidence for evolution as vestigial structures and evidence whales once walked on land. Yet the"hind legs" are really anchor points that mussel attach to without they cannot reproduce. These bones are different in the male and female whales. They are not useless at all, but help penis erection in the males and vaginal contraction in the females. Below are two great videos one from a lies in the textbook series and one from a debate on this topic.
“These “hip bones” are not attached to the backbone of any whale, dolphins, or any of the fossils. Claims beyond the realm of human detection are mystical”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Whales and Evolution Joined at the hip
Great video response in a debate on evolution of whale and hind legs here
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprI75NluE0
Lies in textbooks whale hind legs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JudnZJtrj5Q
Embryology- Recapitulation Theory ("ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny") claiming that an individual organism's biological development, or ontogeny, parallels and summarizes its species' evolutionary development, or phylogeny.
"Seldom has an assertion like that of Haeckel’s theory of recapitulation, facile, tidy, and plausible, widely accepted without critical examination, done so much harm to science."
—*Gavin De Beer, A Century of Darwin (1958).
“Far Beyond anything resembling science...an embarrassment to Darwin himself.”
-R Milner The encyclopedia of evolution 1990
“Shouldent students be skeptical when they're told that evolutionist can simply look at folds in embyoes and see gill slits? The truth is those are only folds of tissue in the pharynx region of vertebrates during the pharyngula stage of development....they never develop into a structure that is in any way like fish gills....the human tail is another misnomer born of evolutionist “look- imagine- see” methodology. What we actually see through time are early precursors to the spine forming the axial skeleton....so when evolutionist see a lower portion of the afial skeleton where the embryo is yet to grow, they “see” a transient “tail” in their imaginations. Human embroyes are recapitulating their reptilian past. But there never is a tail. The embryo grows down to its coccyx, which begins anchoring devolving muscles of the pelvic floor.”
-Randy Guliuzza P.E M.D Haeckel's Embryos Born of Evolutionary Imagination
In Jena Germany 1860 Ernst Hankel decided he would make some fake drawings of human embryo to make them look more like supposed human ancestors. He said embryos go through ancestral stages of their evolutionary past. He admitted to them being faked 6 years later and his own university charged him with fraud but it is still taught today as proof of evolution. Doctors in Germany new right away they were fake but this faked evidence alone converted almost all of Germany to evolution. Henkel went around the country showing his drawings and other fake missing links to the public. Many animals that dont share an evolutionary lineage are similar yet those that do are very different such as the DNA. Vertebrates eggs very greatly. He left out various stages during the development that refuted his claims. He was exposed in 1868 by University of Basel comparative anatomist professor L Rutitmyer and again in 1874 by the leading embryologist of his day Wilhelm Hissr of the university of Leipig.
"At Jena, the university where he taught, Haeckel was charged with fraud by five professors and convicted by a university court. His deceit was thoroughly exposed in Haeckel’s Frauds and Forgeries (1915), a book by J. Assmuth and Ernest J. Hull. They quoted nineteen leading authorities of the day. F. Keibel, professor of anatomy at Freiburg University, said that it clearly appears that Haeckel has in many cases freely invented embryos or reproduced the illustrations given by others in a substantially changed form. L. Rutimeyer, professor of zoology and comparative anatomy at Basle University, called his distorted drawings a sin against scientific truthfulness deeply compromising to the public credit of a scholar."
—James Perloff, Tornado in a Junkyard, p. 112
This is a lie used to support evolution despite being proven wrong over 150 years ago. The only reason it is still in the textbooks is because it supports abortion. Its not a human in there its just a fish or a lizard. According to this story babies have gill slits and a human tail from its evolutionary past. Its not even human at even 7 months, there going through fish stage, than amphibian etc yet over 34% of babies survive after 5 1/2 months. How come if you kill a bald eagle egg you get fined they know thats a bird but they dont know a human is human.
"This is one of the worst cases of scientific fraud. It’s shocking to find that somebody one thought was a great scientist was deliberately misleading. It makes me angry . . What he [Haeckel] did was to take a human embryo and copy it, pretending that the salamander and the pig and all the others looked the same at the same stage of development. They don’t . . These are fakes." —*Michael Richardson, quoted in "An Embryonic Liar," The London Times, August 11, 1997, p. 14
“[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel.”
“Haeckel’s Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered,” Journal Science http://science.sciencemag.org/conten...1435.1.summary
"The biogenetic law has become so deeply rooted in biological thought that it cannot be weeded out in spite of its having been demonstrated to be wrong by numerous subsequent scholars."
—*Walter J. Bock, Science, May 1969 Department of Biological Sciences at Columbia University
"The theory of recapitulation was destroyed in 1921 by Professor Walter Garstang in a famous paper. Since then no respectable biologist has ever used the theory of recapitulation, because it was utterly unsound, created by a Nazi-like preacher named Haeckel."— Ashley Mantague, debate held April 12, 1980, at Princeton University, quoted in L.D. Sunderland, Darwin’s Enigma, p. 119
"Thetheory of recapitulation . . should be defunct today."
—*Stephen J. Gould, "Dr. Down’s Syndrome," Natural History, April 1980, p. 144.
“Surely the biogenetic law is as dead as a doornail.”
Keith Stewart Thomson, “Ontogeny and Phylogeny Recapitulated,” American Scientist, Vol. 76, May–June 1988, p. 273.
“Took along time to expose....so seductive did this picture appear.”
-G De Beer Darwin and Embryology 1958
“In his enthusiasm to prove the law, thereby, vindicate evolution, the biogenetic law major propulizers resorted to outright fraud.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders frauds and forgeries
Human Gill Slits
Still taught in schools today based on his drawings. We never have gill slits they are not gills and they are never used for breathing nor even openings of any kind. They are folds not gill slits, the folds later turn into the to middle ear canal, parathyroids and the thymus gland.
"The pharyngeal arches and clefts [creases] are frequently referred to as bronchial arches and bronchial clefts in analogy with the lower vertebrates, but since the human embryo never has gills called ‘bronchia,’ the term pharyngeal arches and clefts has been adopted for this book."
—*Jan Langman, Medical Embryology, 3rd ed. (1975).
“The so-called gill slits of a human embryo have nothing to do with gills, and the human embryo does not pass through a fish stage or any other evolutionary stage. The development of the human embryo reveals steady progress toward a fully functional human body. Never in the course of development does a human embryo absorb oxygen from water as fish do with gills. (The human embryo is fully supplied with oxygen through the umbilical cord.) In fact, these “gill slits” are not even slits.”
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...shy-gill-slits
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...evelopment.asp
Human Tail
“Our “tailbone” is really a functional participant in our physiology, not a relic of history.”
--Nathaniel T Jeanson Replacing Darwin Master Books 2017
What is claimed to be a tail later becomes a lower part of the spinal column. the spinal column is full of complicated bones and the length of the spine starts out longer in proportion to the body than in adulthood. Another reason the spine is longer is because the muscles and limbs do not develop until they are stimulated by the spinal nerves, so the spine must grow and mature enough that it can send out the proper signals. The human tail has no bones or muscles.
Peppered moth
“And all those still photos of moths on tree trunks? One paper described how it was done—dead moths were glued to the tree. University of Massachusetts biologist Theodore Sargent helped glue moths onto trees for a NOVA documentary. He says textbooks and films have featured ‘a lot of fraudulent photographs.”
-D.R. Lees & E.R. Creed, Industrial melanism in Biston betularia: the role of selective predation, Journal of Animal Ecology 44:67–83, 1975 J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998The Washington Times, p. D8, 17 January 1999
We have all seen this one shown as a supposed proof of evolution. It is in fact a fraud.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GotJEcEdkuI
Classic ‘textbook’ photos of the moths resting on tree trunks were faked, as dead moths were pinned or glued to the tree trunks. The ‘teaching’ film of the moths being eaten by birds was also ‘staged’ and not a true natural situation.
However of what is true is just natural section. The fact is nothing new was created or "evolved" to support evolution
1]Before the industrial revolution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
2]During the worst days of pollution, there was genetic information for dark and light moths.
3]Today, there is genetic information for dark and light moths.
The biologist L. Harrison Matthews was prominent enough to be asked to provide the foreword to the 1971 edition of Darwin’s Origin of Species. He was at the time clearly also quite happy to see the moths, as an example of selection in action
‘The experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.’
University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne agrees that the peppered moth story, which was ‘the prize horse in our stable,’ has to be thrown out. He says the realization gave him the same feeling as when he found out that Santa Claus was not real J.A. Coyne, Nature 396(6706):35–36, 1998
Darwins Finches
The variety of beak sizes observed by Darwin is shown as proof of evolution. However this is simply a sorting of pre-existing genes. Then natural selection could remove information for thin beaks.
“Princeton zoology professor Peter Grant recently released some results of an intensive 18-year study of all the Galápagos finches during which natural selection was observed in action For example, during drought years, as finches depleted the supply of small seeds, selection favoured those with larger, deeper beaks capable of getting at the remaining large seeds and thus surviving, which shifted the population in that direction.”
-P.R. Grant, ‘Natural Selection and Darwin’s Finches’, Scientific American, 265(4):60–65, October 1991
“When the drought brought a shortage of easily available small seeds, is it any wonder that the birds with big beaks survived better because they were the only ones to be able to crack big seeds, and so on? for a while selection drove the finch populations towards larger birds, then when the environment changed, it headed them in the opposite direction.”
- Dr Carl weiland MD
“a 2010 study confirmed that Darwin’s finches developed 14 different sorts of beaks using the same developmental pathways and genetic products. Another case that comes to mind is the empirical research on Galapagos finches done by the Grants. They have done some long term, methodical, empirical work. No doubt about that, but ironically it ends up contradicting macro-evolution... Galapagos finches vary within certain parameters, but remain finches. No evolution...
-Grant, B. Rosemary & Grant, Peter R. (1993)Evolution of Darwin's Finches Caused by a Rare Climatic Event. pp. 111-117Proceedings: Royal Society of Biological Sciences, vol. 251, no. 1331 Feb. 22,,
http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=096...B%3E2.0.CO;2-T
“This is indeed an example of adaptation and natural selection. But note that it actually removes genes from the populations—on seed-rich islands with few grubs, information for long, slender beaks would likely be lost; while the information for thick, strong beaks would be lost on grub-rich (seed-poor) islands . So this change is in the opposite direction from goo-to-you evolution, which requires new genes with new information.It can hardly be over-emphasized: natural selection is not evolution; indeed, natural selection was discovered by creationists before Darwin”
-Dr Jonathan Sarfati received his B.Sc. (hons) in Chemistry and his Ph.D. (Physical Chemistry) from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand.
Miller–Urey experiment and the origin of life
"The origin of life remains one of the humankind's last great unanswered questions, as well as one of the most experimentally challenging research areas. . . .Despite recent progress in the field, a single definitive description of the events leading up to the origin of life on Earth some 3.5 billion years ago remains elusive."
-Stanley L. Miller and H. James Cleaves, "Prebiotic Chemistry on the Primitive Earth" in Isidore Rigoutsos and Gregroy Stephanopoulos, eds., Systems Biology Volume 1: Genomics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2007), 3:
In the experiment notice no Oxygen was used since life cannot arise with Oxygen so they always leave it out of these lab experiments. The bad part though is it cant arise without either because Oxygen makes up the ozone layer and that blocks uvlight radiation etc that would kill anything trying to begin life. This “reducing atmosphere” is pure fantasy and imagination on part of the evolutionist, no were do we find evidence for this early earth in the geological column. no were do we find the chemicals together needed to produce the first cell.
They assumed methane and omnia in the atmosphere methane should be stuck to ancient clays but is not found.Left out oxygen witch has been found in all rock layers.
"The synthesis of compounds of biological interest takes place only under reducing conditions [that is, with no free oxygen in the atmosphere]."
—*Stanley L. Miller and *Leslie E. Orgel (1974), p. 33.
"With oxygen in the air, the first amino acid would never have gotten started; without oxygen, it would have been wiped out by cosmic rays."
—*Francis Hitching, The Neck of the Giraffe (1982), p. 65.
They took chemicals out after the first strike because if it went through again it would be destroyed. they also did a unrealistic lightning strike.
"[Arrhenius] contends that if actual lightning struck rather than the fairly mild [electrical] discharges used by [Stanley] Miller [in making the first synthetic amino acids], any organics that happened to be present could not have survived."
—*Report in Science News, December 1, 1973, p. 340
this is artificially controlled lab in a made up early earth pure fantasy stuff going on here.
"If there ever was a primitive soup, then we would expect to find at least somewhere on this planet either massive sediments containing enormous amounts of the various nitrogenous organic compounds, amino acids, purines, pyrimidines, and the like, or alternatively in much metamorphosed sediments we should find vast amounts of nitrogenous cokes . . In fact, no such materials have been found anywhere on earth. There is, in other words, pretty good negative evidence that there never was a primitive organic soup on this planet that could have lasted but a brief moment." —*J. -Brooks and *G. Shaw, Origins and Development of Living Systems (1973), p. 360.
What they created was 85% tar 13% carboxyic acid both poisonous to life and only 2% amino acids which he quickly took away from the other deadly chemicals because they would destroy them. They only created 2 of the 20 amino acids needed for life. they both bond with the other two deadly chemical's. If it wasent for his controlled lab he would have nothing. Half of the amino acids were left hand half were right hand. for life they need to be all left and the smallest protein needs at least 70-100 that need to be all left handed.
"Pasteur’s demonstration apparently laid the theory of spontaneous generation to rest permanently. All this left a germ of embarrassment for scientists. How had life originated after all, if not through divine creation or through spontaneous generation? . ."They [today’s scientists] are back to spontaneous generation, but with a difference. The pre-Pasteur view of spontaneous generation was of something taking place now and quickly. The modern view is that it took place long ago and very slowly."
—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), pp. 638-639.
"An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to have been satisfied to get it going."
—*Francis Crick, Life Itself: Its Origin and Nature (1981), p. 88
"Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atmosphere. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living things."
—Lord Kelvin, quoted in Battle for Creation, p. 232
" ‘Spontaneous generation is a chimera [illusion].’
—Louis Pasteur, French chemist and microbiologist."—*Isaac Asimov’s Book of Science and Nature Quotations (1988), p. 193.
‘We now know that the secret of life lies not with the chemical ingredients as such, but with the logical structure and organisational arrangement of the molecules. … Like a supercomputer, life is an information processing system. … It is the software of the living cell that is the real mystery, not the hardware.’ But where did it come from? Davies framed the question this way: ‘How did stupid atoms spontaneously write their own software? … Nobody knows …’.
-Davies, P., The Fifth Miracle, Penguin, Melbourne, Australia, 1998.
"there is no doubt that the common ancestor possessed DNA>RNA and proteins, a universal genetic code , ribosomes ATP and a proton-powered enzyme for making ATP the detailed mechanisms for reading off dna and converting genes into proteins were also in place, in short then, the last common ancestor of all life looks pretty much like a modern cell"
-Lane nick,was our oldest ancestor a proton-powered rock? new scientist 204[2730] 38-42 17 oct 2009
“Although at the beginning the paradigm was worth consideration, now the entire effort in the primeval soup paradigm is self-deception based on the ideology of its champions“The history of science shows that a paradigm, once it has achieved the status of acceptance (and is incorporated in textbooks) and regardless of its failures, is declared invalid only when a new paradigm is available to replace it. Nevertheless, in order to make progress in science, it is necessary to clear the decks, so to speak, of failed paradigms. This must be done even if this leaves the decks entirely clear and no paradigms survive. It is a characteristic of the true believer in religion, philosophy and ideology that he must have a set of beliefs, come what may (Hoffer, 1951). Belief in a primeval soup on the grounds that no other paradigm is available is an example of the logical fallacy of the false alternative. In science it is a virtue to acknowledge ignorance. This has been universally the case in the history of science as Kuhn (1970) has discussed in detail. There is no reason that this should be different in the research on the origin of life.”
-Hubert P. Yockey, 1992 (a non-creationist). Information Theory and Molecular Biology, Cambridge University Press, UK, p. 33
Since the equilibrium concentration of polymers is so low, their thermodynamic tendency is to break down in water, not to be built up. The long ages postulated by evolutionists simply make the problem worse, because there is more time for water’s destructive effects to occur. High temperatures, as many researchers advocate, would accelerate the breakdown. The famous pioneer of evolutionary origin-of-life experiments, Stanley Miller, points out that polymers are ‘too unstable to exist in a hot prebiotic environment’
Miller, S.L. and Lazcano, A., 1995. The origin of life—did it occur at high temperatures? J. Mol. Evol. 41:689–692.
Miller has also pointed out that the RNA bases are destroyed very quickly in water at 100°C—adenine and guanine have half lives of about a year, uracil about 12 years, and cytosine only 19 days. Levy, M and Miller, S.L., 1998. The stability of the RNA bases: Implications for the origin of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 95(14):7933–38.
"The origin of life remains one of the great scientific mysteries. The central conundrum is the threshold problem. Only when organic molecules achieve a certain very high level of complexity can they be considered as 'living', in the sense that they encode a huge amount of information in a stable form and not only display the capability of storing the blueprint for replication but also the means to implement that replication. The problem is to understand how this threshold could have been crossed by ordinary physical and chemical processes without the help of some supernatural agency."
Paul Davies, God and the New Physics (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1983), 68:
"It should be stated at the outset that the origin of life remains a deep mystery. There are no lack of theories, of course, but the divergence of opinion among scientists on this topic is probably greater than for any other topic in biology.
"The essential problem in explaining how life arose is that even the simplest living things are stupendously complex. The replicative machinery of life is based on the DNA molecule, which is itself as structurally complicated and intricately arranged as an automobile assembly line. If replication requires such a high threshold of complexity in the first place how can any replicative system have arisen spontaneously?"
-Paul Davies, Cosmic Blueprint: New Discoveries in Nature's Creative Ability to Order the Universe (West Conshohocken, PA: Templeton Foundation Press, 2004 [original: Houghton and Mifflin, 1988]), 115:
No, the presence of building materials is one thing, the requirement of the plan to put these building materials in the proper places and get them working together is another thing. That’s why a cell is so beautiful, so intricate. Because of that, even non-Christian scientists marvel at that. Even to get one single functional protein molecule to form by chance is a mathematical absurdity. Sir Fred Hoyle recognized this. He teased his colleagues, told them to put all the raw ingredients in a swimming pool, and see if they get one single molecule needed. Of course no one will take him up, because they know it won’t work.
-Biochemist and head of nuclear medicine at Singapore General Hospital M.B., B.S., Ph.D.(Lond.), FRC Path., MI Biol. (Lond.)
"Geologists, chemists, astronomers and biologists are as stumped as ever by the riddle of life," wrote Scientific American blogger John Horgan
-Horgan, J. Pssst! DonHYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"'HYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"t tell the creationists, but scientists donHYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"'HYPERLINK "http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=pssst-dont-tell-the-creationists-bu-2011-02-28"t have a clue how life began. Scientific American Cross-check. Posted on scientificamerican.com February 28, 2011, accessed March 2, 2011.
“both the origin of life and the origin of major groups of animals remain unknown”
-alfred g fisher evolution groller multimedia encyclopedia 1998 fossil section
Ancon Sheep
“The Ancon mutation is a loss mutation....this type of mutation does not result in functional information, as Darwinism requires”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries
Given as a textbook exsaple of evolution what was thought to be new information by mutations turned out to be a disease called Achondroplasia. Few of the sheep survived past a few months they could not run or jump and could barley walk and soon went extinct because of the disease.
“It is now recognized that Ancon sheep were not a new breed, but the result of a genetic disease called Achondroplasia....yet it is mentioned in textbooks as evidence for macroevolutinary jumps.”
-Jerry Bergman Evolution's Blunders, frauds and Forgeries
Human Chimp DNA 99% similarity
“It is clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more excessive than previously thought, their genomes are not 98-99% identical”
-Todd Press Human Brain evaluation PNAS 109 20121 10709-16
One of the constant myths and lies used to support evolution is the claim that chimps and man are 99% identical. This was never the case and only evolutionary bias and misrepresentation of the actual data led to this. Evolutionist would inject their beliefs and bias in how they pieced together the chimp genome as the human genome was used as a template to make them more similar then they actually were. There is in fact no human or chimp genome, they are pieced together
“Even with DNA sequence we have no direct access to the process of evolution so objective reconstitution of the vanished past can be achieved only by creative imagination”
-N Takahata a genetic perspective on the origin and history of humans 1995
They would add sections of the human genome to fill in “gaps” that did not exists in the chimp genome. A study done by evolutionist showed only 70% of the genomes aligned and this does not count other differences.
“When we do this alignment [chimp/human genomes] we discover that only 2,400 million of the human genomes 3,164.7 million “letters” align with the chimp genome. That is 70%.”
-Richard Bugss chimpanzees reformatorisch Dagblad oct 10 2008
24% of the genome have no alignment and so were not used in comparisons. When evolutionist did a chimp comparison without using human model on the y chromosome, they found a 53% differences in gene content alone. David page led the project and published in the journal nature said the two chromosomes are
“Horrendously different from each other … It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages...Half of the chimpanzee ampliconic sequence, and 30% of the entire MSY, has no counterpart in the human MSY, and vice versa. ”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010
“we now know that the old “humans and chimps are 99% identical” canard is passé.”
-Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463:149, 2010
But It does not tell the public as convincing a story when they are told the truth, rather the importance is on them believing in evolution and 99% makes a better case. As one of their main focus research projects creationist at the Institute for Creation Research [http://www.icr.org/] are digging into this claim of chimp/human similarities and creationist can offer a more objective analysis of the data since they do not assume evolution. One of the early papers from the project was
Jeff Tompkins ARJ “Genome wide only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to Human under most optimal sequence slice conditions” https://answersingenesis.org/answers...n-chromosomes/
and he concluded
“therefore the total similarity should be below 70%” Plus it is now said that humans can vary by 4.5% yet chimps are claimed to be only 2%.
http://www.icr.org/article/dna-varia...n-chimp-chasm/
Other Similarities with Humans
“the difference in 6 million years of separation of gene content in chimps and humans is more comparable to the difference in gene content of chickens and humans 310 million years ago”
nature 463 [7280]536-539 Hughs etal 2010
Similarities between mouse and human genes range from about 70% to 90%, with an average of 85%
http://ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human … pgen.shtml
Sea squirt lab rats share 80% of genes with humans bananas share 60% [see march 3 2010 science daily sea squirts offer hope for alztimers sufferers].
Sea sponges share 70% with humans www.abc.net/news 5 aug 2010.
Trichoplax, one of nature's most primitive multicellular organisms, " shares over 80 percent of its genes with humans,"
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 … 172419.htm
It is a fact that 75% of our genetic make-up is the same as a pumpkin.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/386516.stm
"in 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 … 10842.html
Man can be closest related to a rattlesnake
p 15 In the beginning walt brown 2008
Does Similarity prove a Common Ancestor?
A designer would use the same elements if he were the creator over all of creation to show one creator rather than multiple creators. All the books in a library are made up of the same 26 letters, this does not prove they all evolved from Morse code. As a baker would use similar ingredients to make a chocolate cake and a vanilla cake, so God made animals using similar designs patters [showing one god] and animals would be as similar as their functions were similar. The honda prelude and the honda accord have thousands of interchangeable parts, did they both evolve from a skateboard ? or was the same company making them for similar purposes?
What evolutionist see as evidence of a common ancestor can equally be evidence of a common designer, for example Humans and chimps are as similar as their functions are. If similarity proves common ancestry, than clouds are made up of 100% water, watermelons are 97% water, the missing link is jellyfish 98% water. Evolutionist need to show how lower forms of animals changed into the supposed higher forms of animals, or at the very least, show a working observable mechanism. Similarity shows similarity, not evolution. They simply pick what similarities that seem to fit evolution and make sure they are in the textbooks and the public hears about them. Yet there are so many comparisons that go against evolution and can group animals totally different that somehow do not make it in.
“The particular truth is simply that we have no reliable evidence as to the evolutionary sequence . . One can find qualified, professional arguments for any group being the descendant of almost any other."
—*J. Bonner, "Book Review," American Scientist 49:1961, p. 240.
It was the creationist who prediction that common design would also lead to common genetics, unlike the evolutionist predictions of the time that came true see.
Major Evolutionary Blunders: Evolutionary Predictions Fail the Reality Test
http://www.icr.org/article/major-blu...y-predictions/
Homology
Convergent Evolution or Design-Based Adaptation?
http://www.icr.org/article/convergen...-design-based/
"The older text-books on evolution make much of the idea of homology . . Now if these various structures were transmitted by the same gene-complex, varied from time to time by mutations and acted upon by environmental selection, the theory would make good sense. Unfortunately this is not the case. Homologous organs are now known to be produced by totally different gene complexes in the different species. The concept of homology in terms of similar genes handed on from a common ancestor has broken down."—
-Randall, quoted in *William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, p. 189.
"When Professor [*George Gaylord] Simpson says that homology is determined by ancestry and concludes that homology is evidence of ancestry, he is using the circular argument so characteristic of evolutionary reasoning. When he adds that evolutionary developments can be described without paleontological evidence, he is attempting to revive the facile and irresponsible speculation which through so many years, under the influence of the Darwinian mythology, has impeded the advance of biology."—
*Evolution and Taxonomy," Studia Entomologica, Vol. 5, October 1962, p. 567.
"It is now clear that the pride with which it was assumed that the inheritance of homologous structures from a common ancestor explained homology was misplaced; for such inheritance cannot be ascribed to identity of genes. The attempt to find ‘homologous’ genes, except in closely related species, has been given up as hopeless."
—*Sir Gavin De Beer, Homology, an Unsolved Problem (1971)
what of the same strucrures said to be from a common ancestor that in fact the bones that are said to be ancestral on human and monkeys are from different genes on the chromosomes how can they be ancestral?
Homoligous structures often come from different genes and some genes produce different structures, thus refuting horology as an argument for evolution. The Molecular evidence also often contradicts the fossil record in many cases.
The Greatest Hoax on Earth Jonthan Safarti p 95
grouping animals based on similarities was done before Darwin
p35 joc 25 [2] 2011
homology problems for evolution design vs common ancestor
p43-45 creation mag 34 [4] 2012
Problems with the evolutionary interpretation of limb design
http://creation.com/limb-design-homology
article/pictures on homology
http://creation.com/homology-made-simple
CONVERGENCE
Evolutionists claim that the information is “conserved.” Conserved is the evolution-speak label tagged to the phenomenon of finding nearly identical traits across many wildly different organisms. Such organisms supposedly “emerged” from unrelated pathways and carried unchanged (i.e., “conserved”) information for the similar trait across evolutionary time—while many other traits were greatly changing. Finding information for similar traits is certainly a factual observation. But believing that they are “conserved” is a declaration based in imagination…and firm convictions that evolution happened. In contrast, if the common trait is found in only a few diverse creatures, evolutionists then imagine “convergent evolution” happened. There is a less mystical, more straightforward explanation that is consistent with what engineers do. It may be that different creatures are designed to retain specific developmental architecture for the common purpose of reutilizing regulatory pathways to recover ancestral states when the situation for them is suitable. Stable mechanisms that can be reactivated when useful are more consistent with intelligent forethought since “Darwinian evolution…is near-sighted and agnostic with regard to goal.”
- Randy J. Guliuzza, P.E., M.D. Major Evolutionary Blunders: Breaking Dollo's Law
—Then there is convergence. "Convergence" occurs when different creatures have similar organs. For example, the woody plants generally have a growing edge (cambium) between the inner part (xylem) of the plant and its outer part (phloem). But this similarity arises because it is the best way for that general type of plant to grow, so the Designer used this basic pattern for nearly all trees—even though most are totally unlike each other in many other ways. It is foolish to suggest that plants have the intelligence to make the decision themselves as to how they shall be structured, for they have no brains. They do it because they were designed that
Hemo Globin red blood cells is found amongst vertebra's and is scattered among a Variety of animals without backbones and is also found in worms, starfish, clams, insects, bacteria and no definite pattern was found. The
Aortic arch is found in 5 animals that have no evolutionary resemblance. if evolution were true, it is clear that all animals in each of those five basic aortic arch types would have to be closely related to one another. Indeed, the evolutionists loudly proclaim that similarities require evolutionary descent.
"If, then, it can be established beyond dispute that similarity or even identity of the same character in different species is not always to be interpreted to mean that both have arisen from a common ancestor, the whole argument from comparative anatomy seems to tumble in ruins."—
*Thomas Hunt Morgan, "The Bearing of Mendelism on the Origin of the Species," Scientific Monthly 16
Those animals that share the FIRST type of aortic arch are these: horses, goats, donkeys, zebras, cows, sheep, pigs, and deer.Those animals that share the SECOND type of aortic arch are these: whales, moles, shrews, porpoises, and hedgehogs.Those animals that share the THIRD type of aortic arch are these: skunks, bears, kangaroos, rats, raccoons, dogs, opossums, squirrels, beavers, wombats, mice, porcupines, cats, and weasels.Those animals that share the FOURTH type of aortic arch are these: dugongs, some bats, sea cows, duck-billed platypus, echidna, and human beings.Those animals that share the FIFTH type of aortic arch are these: walruses and African elephants.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Husar
.
Bookmarks