Piltdown Superman

With the recent revelation that the evolutionists in the scientific community caught up to the non-evolutionists regarding "junk" DNA, scientific journals and scientists are writing and talking science stuff, scientifically. Dr. Georgia Purdom (Ph.D. in molecular genetics, specialty of cellular and molecular biology) has some comments regarding the findings. I’m so excited to be writing a blog on the new research published by ENCODE on “junk” DNA! In fact, as I looked over the material I decided I should devote two blogs to the topic. Part one will cover what ENCODE found and why it’s important. In part two, I’ll discuss opposition to the research findings by many evolutionists. ENCODE is an acronym for ENC yclopedia O f D NA E lements. The ENCODE project is devoted to essentially making sense of the human genome. The sequence of the human genome was completed in 2000, but all it gave us was the order of the individual components, called bases or nucleotides,

One trait that atheists and evolutionists have when encountering information regarding intelligent design (especially from biblical creationists) is to ignore it and attack. For example, a recent post about the follies of secular astronomical predictions was ignored by an uneducated tinhorn who wanted to be smarter than everyone else in the room — he wanted to talk about an asteroid instead. Similarly, we get challenged at The Question Evolution Project by atheopaths who ignore the content of the posts, change the subject and (wait for it...) attack. It's who they are and what they do. As we shall see, this kind of thing happens in professional circles as well as from social media nitwits. The book Contested Bones dealt with, well, bones. Three pages of it involved other failures of evolution. What's a fundamentalist Darwinoid to do except ignore the majority of the text and attack those three pages? Sure, that's how scientific discourse works in the secular world n

Years ago, the human genome was ineffectively sequenced. Toplofty scientists, reasoning from their molecules-to-molasses preparer evolutionary presuppositions, determined that the things they didn't understand were "junk" from our alleged evolutionary past. Using more advanced equipment and using due diligence, most of the things that were labeled as non-functional have been both embarrassing and surprising, since they do  have functions, some of them very intricate. Herein lies an example of how evolutionary thinking hinders science. If the previous sequencers had assumed instead that life was created, and what was found was there for a purpose, there would not have been so many delays in scientific advancement. Image credit:  “Dna” by renjith krishnan at FreeDigitalPhotos.net I'll allow that it's difficult to find something that is difficult to see, and further discoveries were practically hiding in plain sight. They're small, but have vital roles,

Proponents of Darwinian evolution are known to claim that amazingly complex DNA is friendly to their belief system. That's the opposite of the truth. We had the "junk DNA" fiasco, where evolutionist studied some of the genome, didn't understand a lot of it, had that relegated to "junk" status, and were embarrassed when proper research refuted the "junk" claims. The fact is, a great deal of DNA is not yet understood. Scientists have attempted to determine how transcription factors bind to the genome so they can switch genes on and off. This has had poor results. However, it looks like they've saddled up the right horse this time, with new research and a three-dimensional model. And this  time, scientists were more interested in doing science instead of being Darwin's Cheerleaders — no silly claims about evolution. Maybe because the research itself was very complex, and gave them a bit of proper perspective about the design skills of the

It has been said that the works of Charles Darwin on evolution through natural selection managed to kill God. That is the opposite of the truth. There is an abundance of evidence linked here and other places refuting evolution and deep time, but also affirming recent creation and the young earth. People believe because they want to, not because they are compelled by the evidence . In fact, some Darwin doubters are becoming more vocal , and there would probably be more speaking out if they were not in fear of losing prestige or even their jobs. Meanwhile, fundamentalist evolutionists insist that genetics supports evolution. Not hardly! DNA, RNA, Amino acids codon table , public domain, mostly modified at LunaPic Because evolutionists interpret data with presuppositions rooted in atheistic naturalism, they have their biases confirmed — even when the evidence shows otherwise. These are the folks that gave us so-called vestigial structures, "junk" DNA, and other hindrances to med

From the Ministry of Irrelevant but Somewhat Interesting Material: This post was scheduled for 08.09, 10-11-12 , Eastern Daylight Time, New York, USA. It seems that some evolutionary scientists are not happy about the findings of ENCODE. The findings do not support the presuppositions of an evolutionist worldview. (One arrogant assumption was that since they cannot find a use for something they do not understand, they label it as "junk", leftover from our imaginary past evolution.) The data fit the biblical creation model without any problems, but evolutionists would rather force-fit the data into their faulty premises than accept the better explanation. Dr. Georgia Purdom continues her discussion about the ENCODE project. If you missed Part 1, that is here . In part two I want to discuss the opposition of many evolutionists to the ENCODE findings. Rather than put words in the evolutionists’ mouths, I will let them speak for themselves as to how they regard approxima

There have been amazing discoveries in the genome in the fast few years, including epigenetics , the refutations of "junk" DNA and of human-chimpanzee DNA similarities , the long non-coding RNA , and much more. Naturally, Darwin bots try to spin defeat into victory , and you can be certain that the excuse mill will come up with "explanations" to deal with new information about hidden codes. Credit: Pixabay / Ingo Jakubke No, not the kind of hidden codes such as biblical numerology or end-times date-setting, or seeing a cross in the protein laminin . These codes are scientific, not esoteric. Scientists did not know that the letters in DNA can form "words" with more than one use. They had to commence to searching. via GIPHY Proteins need to fold, and they have to do it in just the right way, and some pause all activity until the folding is completed. Also, there are codons that regulate the way that DNA is copied into RNA. There is much more, an

You may recall that evolutionary scientists studied selected parts of the genome, and the areas they did not understand were termed "junk" DNA that were useless leftovers from our evolutionary past. Those assumptions are being proved wrong . By not studying things that they ignored because they did not understand them (how scientific is that?), several branches of science were hindered. Three images compiled and modified were originally from openclipart . In this case, medical science related to heart health has been irregular. Portions of that stuff they wrote off are actually vital. Long non-coding RNAs are finally receiving studies, and some of them play a part in heart health. If scientists had a worldview that included the idea that God designed things for a purpose, this negligence may not have happened. A new research study has shown that large regions of the human genome, once thought to be useless junk, work to keep your heart functioning properly. When the

Heading up Deception Pass way, you might catch the hands at the Darwin Ranch feeling a mite glum over the outcome of the latest facts. Another of their latest efforts to support common-ancestor evolution has been thrown onto the compost pile out back. Again, it involves DNA, which has never been a friend to their paradigm. Image credit: Pixabay / PublicDomainPictures Evolutionary scientists show a heap of hubris by asserting that something is due to evolution because they don't understand it. For example, the "junk" DNA fiasco, where sections of DNA were declared leftover junk from our alleged evolutionary past, then discovered to be very important indeed . Three bases in RNA work on coding for a protein. The third base was considered redundant (no reflection on Kris Bryant ), therefore, evolution could maybe perhaps occur. Evolutionists tried this trick before to no avail, and it's not working now. (They can cry, protest, and riot if they want to, but that won

While scientists work from their presuppositions and interpret the evidence accordingly, many owlhoots will attempt to force-fit the evidence into their views. For years, proponents of muck-to-misotheist evolution have claimed that we have "junk" DNA, arguing from ignorance. In addition, they claim that we have pseudogenes. This was also based on assumptions and lack of knowledge. Then they commenced to making excuses with what they called pseudo-pseudogenes. Background image modified and furnished by Why?Outreach There is still a great deal to learn from the science of genetics that Mendel began (peas be upon him), so a bit of humility from scientists is in order. Similar "mistakes" in different organisms are illogically hailed as evidence for evolution. Not hardly! When further scientific research with better methods is conducted, we learn that there is no "junk" DNA and that pseudogenes do indeed have functions. Important functions. Yes, som

Evolutionists have a habit of making assertions about the past from limited information about things not fully understood. When it comes to genetics, they're in a world of hurt. One of the hallmarks in scum-to-sculptor evolution is bad logic, and they often resort to affirming the consequent.  Basically, it goes like this: 1. If p, then q. 2. We have q. 3. Therefore, p. Seems simple enough, but it leaves out the possibility of other explanations. As Jason Lisle illustrates : 1. If it's snowing, it must be cold outside. 2. It's cold outside. 3. Therefore, it's snowing out. Not hardly! Let's use this in a way that Darwinists do it: 1. If evolution is true, then DNA will be found in living organisms. 2. DNA is found in living organisms. 3. Therefore, evolution is true. Made through the Chalkboard Message Generator at Add Letters This leaves out pertinent data, which is something these owlhoots will do frequently. Take ERVs (Endogenous RetroVirus

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

In another post , I mentioned how the head honcho at the Darwin Ranch wants to bring in anger management experts. Fossils are being uncooperative with evolutionary views, and the staff are on the prod lately. Geology has been shown to be an ally of recent creation. Now they have broken open the fire water at the Ranch. The study of genetics, pioneered by Gregor Mendel (peas be upon him), is also supportive of biblical creation science. If interested, you can find the original 1895 photo at Wikimedia Commons , and the source of the DNA image is at openclipart Using bad science, the human genome was falsely declared to be loaded with "junk" DNA . Scientists who actually wanted to do something useful instead of making up tall tales to "prove" evolution undertook the ENCODE project, and learned that most of DNA is not junk. That's what creationists have been saying all along. Of course, some scientists reject the findings because evolution. Gotta keep that

Stevia Dolce, the lead baker at the Darwin Ranch up yonder near Deception Pass, surprised me with a visit. She brought Dekker Halls, who was visiting for the Christmas season. They heard talk about pseudogenes that did not sit right with them and wanted to ask me. After digging into the fabulous croissants that Stevia brought, we commenced to discussing the problem. Evolutionary thinking is bad for medical science, and even science itself. Scientists studied DNA, but expected everything to code for proteins. Big mistake. Directional street sign generator at RedKid Like when someone receives a delivery that isn't interesting, "Just set it over there" and it gets forgotten. These things called pseudogenes  look like genes, but did not work the way Darwinists expected. "Why do you say Darwinists , Cowboy Bob?" Dekker asked. "Nobody really believes classical Darwinism anymore." I replied, "True, but it has a couple of uses. The first one is for simpli

by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Greek mythology tells us that Achilles was a great warrior and was invulnerable except in his heel. When Paris, son of the king and queen of Troy, shot him in the heel, he was able to be killed . This gave rise to the expression Achilles' heel to indicate someone's weakest point. Common-ancestor evolution has a passel of weak points, and several of them are quite serious. Disclaimer: none. I bought Evolution's Achilles' Heels all by my lonesome, so I received no benefits for writing this here review. Just over a year ago, I gave a favorable review of the 96-minute documentary by the same name , and it's fitting that I write about the book as well. I reckon that because people are enamored with credentials and such, the good folks at Creation Ministries International didn't give scoffers the excuse of saying someone is "not a scientist" — the book has nine Ph.D. scientists, and the documentary ups the ante to fifteen.

Darwin's defenders often say that the science of genetics refutes biblical creation science and affirms gunk-to-geneticist evolution. That'll be the day! In reality, further research in genetics has been a gold mine for creation science, and the prediction by creationists that there is no "junk" DNA has been confirmed several times . Evolutionists do not help their cause by using deception and bad science, such as when they stitched together the chimpanzee genome and say those critters are our closes relatives. The DNA puzzle is not yet complete, but continues to refute evolution and support special creation. DNA puzzle, Pixabay / qimono Changes in what is known about genetics is rapidly changing, so what we read in textbooks is incomplete or even erroneous today. DNA is more than a storage medium for a n amazing a mount of information, it is a language as well. People who want to know more on the subject have an uphill climb. When scientists commence to wr

Time to do some thinking, as the article featured below has some rather technical material in it. Ever hear of jumping genes? T hey don't actually jump. Rather, they move around a bit under certain circumstances. Retroelements are found in DNA, traveling in the chromosomes of their hosts. They were thought to be "junk" because of evolutionary thinking. As before, so-called junk has been found to have a purpose. "Retroelements" image composed from items found at Clker clipart. The genes of a certain wallaby were sequenced, and the findings seem to support rapid speciation as postulated by biblical creationists. They were doing what the Creator programmed them to do from the beginning. Yippie ky yay, secularists! Jumping genes or transposable elements (TEs) are present in virtually all life forms, from bacteria to humans. They are short DNA sequences that can move from site to site in the chromosomes of their hosts. They have been divided into two grou

It is an exciting time to be a biblical creationist. Evidence keeps on accumulating to confirm what we've said all along, and it is not supportive of evolution. The refutation of the"junk" DNA evolutionary idea is bothersome for them. But one item that really gets evolutionists on the prod is the fact of soft tissues in fossils. (Note that I'm deliberately using the word fossil in its more general sense ; it doesn't necessarily mean that something has been permineralized. Ian Juby discussed that word in a segment on fossilized dinosaur skin at the 20 minute 13 second mark in this video clip .) The reason for consternation on the soft tissues is that they are strong evidence that Earth was created recently, not billions of years ago, and that dinosaurs have not been extinct for millions of years. Image credit: Pixabay / agfcontact Some anti-creationists will pretend that dinosaur soft tissues are irrelevant, others try to ignore them completely, and you