Piltdown Superman

Charles Robert Darwin took the ancient pagan concept of evolution that had been kicked around for hundreds of years, gussied it up, and speculated about universal common ancestry through natural selection. Traditional Darwinism began to fade, but the modern synthesis  saved it from the scrap heap of history. Incorporating the science of genetics initiated by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), mutations  became vitally important. Time, mutations, and natural selection are a trifecta. While Darwin's cheerleaders claim that genetics and mutations support evolution, that is the opposite of the truth. DNA and Mutations, modified from Pixabay / Arek Socha DNA is a complex language or code that is comprised of four letters . A mutation is a transcription error, such as typing an account number of  12 02 1809 as 12 20 1809. Most mutations are harmful. Many have been considered neutral. However, they still add to the genetic load. Consider when running a registry cleaner on a Windows comput

Microbes have been around since creation, and are beneficial to many living things. After the fall of man, everything changed. Mutations, one of the heroes of fish-to-fool evolution, helped cause some of the changes in those microbes. The world is not at equilibrium. While we have "new" diseases that are actually variants of those previously existing, there are also some that are genuinely new to us. Did evolution bring them about? Not at all. The whole thing is quite complicated. Our Creator designed things to work together in their proper places, but microbes can be displaced from animals to humans. There is a One Health  concept where microorganisms and such live in human and animal hosts as well as reservoirs. Changes cause things to jump to other organisms. At this writing, there is evidence that the SARS-CoV-2 virus is connected to a lab in Wuhan ( a discussion that is being hindered ), but don't completely disregard the part of that origin story regarding bats. Thr

There are several ideas floating around about what creationists believe and teach, but honest inquirers who prefer going to the sources instead of relying on hearsay can quickly learn the difference. Consider what creationists teach about species, for example. As regular readers know, we affirm speciation (a new species arises from an extant species). Unfortunately, some professing but uninformed creationists oppose this fact. The two articles presented below have a prairie schooner-full of material that will inform and equip folks. House finch image credit: Freeimages /  Maria Corcacas Creationists use the biblical word kind , which is somewhere around the family level of standard classifications. Species are way down the list. The definition is about as certain as nailing gelatin to a wall.  Species can change quickly, and this is demonstrated in the case of Jacob and the flocks of Laban . We believe that the Master Engineer gave creatures the abilities to adapt and change — they wer

If you study on it, the dogma of randomness  crops up frequently among believers in minerals-to-microbiologist evolution. That fits in well with their materialistic views and insistence in the totally unscientific, subjective, and absurd claim that things only appear  to be designed but are not really. Otherwise, misotheists would have to admit that there is a Designer. Biblical creationists believe that this is the God of the Bible. Materialists evosplain that through billions of Darwin years, mutations, and lotsa luck, we have the amazing diversity of life we see today. Of course, those mutations had to be beneficial according to their schemes. In reality, most are harmful (or at least neutral) and accumulating dents. Credit: Pixabay /  Gerd Altmann The study of genetics (pioneered by creationist Gregor Mendel , peas be upon him), is no friend of evolution. In fact, that field of science continually refutes evolution. (Indeed, genetic entropy refutes both evolution and deep time!) C

Creationists try to be patient with evolutionary scientists, realizing that they are conditioned to think and work within the atheistic naturalism narrative. Many do not realize there are other ways to think other than what is pleasing to Papa Darwin and the evolution industry. From what we see, however, many are deceitful owlhoots. With sensationalistic and misleading secular science industry news outlets as well as iniquitous research statements coming at us, the public must be vigilant before accepting reports of evolution. For example, "limb-like structures" in zebra danios. Credit: Flickr / Bob Jenkins  ( CC BY 2.0 ) Zebra danios are popular with researchers as well as aquarists — "I can see the zebra part, Cowboy Bob, but why danios?" They are from Denmark. Actually, it's a combination of the descriptor and the Latin  Danio rerio . Some people of a different stripe skip that name and just go with zebrafish . If their markings didn't demand their monike

After Darwin's idea of evolution through natural selection grew in popularity, it began to fade in the early twentieth century. Katie, bar the door! Gotta keep that ancient pagan philosophy dressed up in a lab coat going so there is an excuse for denying the truth of the Creator! The science of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him) was added, yielding neo-Darwinism. Skipping forward several years, the effects of radiation and mutations were also incorporated into the naturalistic monstrosity. Scientists seemed to have had a grand time researching radiation, but it did not go well. Artificially mutated from an illustration by Sidney Paget , 1895 The pagan nature of evolutionism was once again revealed, giving Darwin's version of natural selection the ability to make choices and decide from the mutation buffet which traits to use. They even thought that by subjecting living things to X-rays, forcing and accelerating mutations would make wonderful things happen.

Ever notice that many of the animals we have are used for a purpose? Throughout history, we've used them for food and many have been domesticated for labor (plowing, riding, and so forth) and some as pets. (Cowboy wisdom: never name a cow you're going to eat.) Smaller animals like dogs are often useful, birds can be cute and fascinating, reptil es as well , and cats — don't try to harness a tiger, and the house cat is too small to be a laborer. Sometimes for catching mice, and yet, they are adored pets in many places around the world. Some of us coddle them while marveling at their grace and dignity. Guess we humans don't necessarily have to be utilitarian about everything, do we? Especially when many of us consider pets a part of the family. So, where do they come from? The consensus was that our pets came from Egypt. Although they were worshiped there, genetic testing indi cats — I mean, indicates — that they came from Shinar. Well, the Iraq area. And they ultimate

Proponents of carp-to-cardiologist evolution originally relied on Darwin's views of natural selection, a concept that he pilfered from creationist Edward Blyth and then twisted for his own ends. While some fundamentalist evolutionists erroneously conflate "survival of the fittest" natural selection with evolution, the two are not the same . When Darwinists realized that natural selection was not working to cause evolution, they started paying attention to genetics, a science begun by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him). Cropped from a graphic at Clker clipart The most common form of common-ancestor evolution is a synthesis of genetics and natural selection that relies on mutations as its driving force. But the idea of "beneficial" mutations is disputed at best, and there are no examples of mutations improving protein construction. The overwhelming majority of mutations are harmful, and a few are neutral. A recent study on a heart condition that kills peo

Microbes-to-Medical Doctor evolution requires a prairie schooner full of random mutations that need to be beneficial to each and every organism, but they're difficult to find, and not necessarily helpful after all. Some mutations are neutral, most are harmful, and some are considered "beneficial". (The CCR5-delta32 mutation was at first thought to be very beneficial, but it was later discovered to be associated with a potentially life-threatening liver disease.) "Beneficial" is in the eye of the beholder's agenda. One example touted by Darwinistas is sickle-cell anemia , which sometimes gives a person resistance to malaria. They conveniently ignore the fact that it's still anemia and often fatal. My upper left arm is sore, which reminds me... On the day I'm writing up this here post for y'all, I went to the doctor. (Blood pressure is up, but I'm sure that the doctor is an attractive woman has nothing to do with it.) I also got my flu shot

The hands down at the Darwin Ranch are making a pretty good living by promoting particles-to-painter evolution as a series of purposeless, random events over a heap of time, so there's no need for the Creator. Oh, and they also believe in luck. Darwin didn't pay attention to Gregor Mendel's work, which became incorporated into evolution. But are mutations random, and if so, how much? Image credit: Pixabay / blickpixel Upon further study, Darwinists are learning that mutations may be programmed  to happen. Well, that fits, since speciation and adaptation fit biblical creation models quite well. Evolutionists don't cotton to anything resembling design,  because they're trying to distance themselves from the Creator. Ironically, they attribute characteristics of an entity to evolution, making it into an idol they can worship. In the nineteenth century, biologists recognized that animals and plants possess traits that can be beneficial (e.g., increase strength

Purveyors of goo-to-graffiti-artist evolution tend to deal from the bottom of the deck when it comes to definitions. You'll hear about beneficial  mutations, but what does beneficial really mean? If I spray paint something on a wall, the paint may protect the covered areas from rain, which is beneficial. But the chemicals may cause the affected bricks to deteriorate, obviously not a benefit. Nor is it a benefit to me when Marshall Long takes me to jail. Before people get irritated because I'm using an analogy about non-living things, just study on it for a spell; I'm talking about word usage and perspective. When some living things have mutations, some are neutral but the overwhelming majority are bad. Calling them "good" mutations is subjective. A critter can have a mutation that looks good in a lab setting, but will kill it off in the wild. Likewise, some changes can be good in one instance, but extremely bad elsewhere. (They've tried to make somet

Sickle-cell anemia is a painful disease that is caused by a genetic defect inherited from both parents. Evolutionists proclaim this as definitive proof of evolution, but that is the opposite of the truth. People who have this condition are more resistant to malaria. However, this "benefit" is offset by other unpleasant medical factors. This "proof" is presented, but other important factors are left out. CDC.gov 2009/Janice Haney Carr This "icon" of evolution is removed from its place of honor by an expert in his field, Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH. Not only is he a Christian, but a creationist as well. He explains why sickle-cell anemia does not support evolution. Dr Konotey-Ahulu’s speciality is a serious, chronic and painful blood disorder called sickle-cell anemia , which is supposed to be proof positive of Darwinian evolution. He explains: ‘It is caused by inheriting—from both parents—a defect in t

morgueFile / ronnieb (modified) The previous article was about what the author called " Genetic Relativity ". It turns out that he has a follow-up article. For chance and mutations to have an effect, they cannot be occasional or random. Many parts must be in place at the same time, or nothing makes sense — or functions. A door hinge unhinges Darwin. There is a huge emphasis in the naturalism (including evolution) vs. creationism debate, over whether "new information" could arise via undirected processes... But it is my thought that an exponentially greater problem for Darwinian evolution exists; one that involves what kind of new information mindless processes would have to create, if molecules to man evolution were true. I'll start out with an example to illustrate the point: In order for the human jaw to work, such that we're able to chew, talk, and so forth,  multiple biological parts  must function in harmony together - starting with the maxilla

Over and over, the problem of confusion over definitions of terms arises. When someone says "evolution", they may be thinking of several possible definitions while the listener thinks they are referring to "molecules-to-man" evolution. This problem also exists in discussions about DNA, genes, mutations and especially "information". Do mutations add information to genes? Some people manipulate words to turn that into a "yes". So, it depends on your definitions. Here is a rather technical article. People who think they can refute it can also deal with the fifty supporting links: In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but

The concept that scientists observe phenomena and then develop hypotheses to explain them is an oversimplification. To say that scientists are neutral and completely unbiased is fiction. Everyone has a frame of reference (including education and experience) as well as biases. It is a part of being human. Like their secular counterparts, creationist scientists will see how data fit within their framework. This technical article about the KIT gene explores variation within a Biblical framework. Identifying mutations and patterns of their appearance and impact is important in furthering the biblical creation model. Genes affecting coloration are relatively easy to identify and several have been well studied. Here, variation in a gene affecting the development and movement of pigment cells,  KIT , is examined. This complex gene codes for a complex protein important in a number of pathways. Many mutations have been identified in each of the species studied. Interesting examples of epige

In the same way that species are not static, neither are genomes. They change over time; sometimes randomly, sometimes in preplanned pathways, and sometimes according to instruction from pre-existing algorithms. Irrespective of the source, we tend to call these changes ‘mutations’. Many evolutionists use the existence of mutation as evidence for long-term evolution, but the examples they cite fall far short of the requirements of their theory. Many creationists claim that mutations are not able to produce new information. Confusion about definitions abounds, including arguments about what constitutes a mutation and the definition of ‘biological information’. Evolution requires the existence of a process for the invention of new information from scratch. Yet, in a genome operating in at least four dimensions and packed with meta-information, potential changes are strongly proscribed. Can mutation

The headline says it all: “Environs Prompt Advantageous Gene Mutations as Plants Grow; Changes Passed to Progeny.” It could also have read: “Lamarck Was Correct, Evolution is False.” Of course this is not new news. For the umpteenth time we hear about the inheritance of acquired characteristics—the catch phrase most often associated with the pre Darwin naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck—which evolutionists desperately opposed for so many years until it could no longer be suppressed so now they say it was their idea all along. Yes there is indeed a battle against science, it’s just not the one evolutionists want you to believe. Read the rest of "Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis" here .

In neo-Darwinian theory, mutations are uniquely biological events that provide the engine of natural variation for all the diversity of life. However, recent discoveries show that mutation is the purely physical result of the universal mechanical damage that interferes with all molecular machinery. Life’s error correction, avoidance and repair mechanisms themselves suffer the same damage and decay. The consequence is that all multicellular life on earth is undergoing inexorable genome decay. Mutation rates are so high that they are clearly evident within a single human lifetime, and all individuals suffer, so natural selection is powerless to weed them out. The effects are mostly so small that natural selection cannot ‘see’ them anyway, even if it could remove their carriers. Our reproductive cells are not immune, as previously thought, but are just as prone to damage as our body cells. Irrespe