Piltdown Superman

Using the presuppositions of which creature evolved in whatever order from certain ancestors, proponents of evolutionism have decreed that humans are closely related to chimpanzees.But according to their own studies, the human genome is more closely related to the gorilla instead of the chimp. Image credit: morgueFile / Sgarton That does not fit their plan, since we supposedly have different ancestors and our DNA should have further dissimilarities. Evolutionists have long maintained that modern primate species (including, in their view, humans) are branches on an evolutionary tree that lead back to a common ancestor. But the recent news of the published genome sequence for the gorilla in the journal Nature adds more solid data to the growing problem facing the current model of primate evolution. This problem is related to a biological paradigm called independent lineage sorting. To illustrate this concept among humans and primates, some segments of human DNA seem more re

morgueFile/hotblack (modified) Adherents of evolutionism take great pride in announcing the alleged similarities between human and chimpanzee DNA. Such boasting is arrogant, as if scientists had full knowledge of DNA. But it is also misleading, because of selective citing from less than four percent of the genome. Also, once again, the conclusion that "Humans and chimps have similar DNA, so we must have evolved from a common ancestor" is simply an illustration of using bad scientific techniques to force-fit data into evolutionary presuppositions. Further examination reveals that such claims are the opposite of the truth. Evolutionary biologists argue that since human and chimp DNA are nearly identical, both species must have evolved from a common ancestor. However, creation scientists have pointed out that their DNA is, in fact, very dissimilar. The vast majority of each species' DNA sequence is not genes, but instead regulated gene expression. A new report unmista

The more scientists learn about genetics and DNA, the more evolutionists must spin metaphysical, non-scientific tales to explain their findings. But God forbid that the majority of them admit that their discoveries point to a Creator instead of supporting time, chance, mutations and other fantasies. Ever since Mendelian genetics was incorporated into Darwinism, evolutionists have believed that the gene is king. Genes, they thought, determine an organism’s design or, in technical jargon, the genotype specifies the phenotype. This fit their view that the species originated from the natural selection of biological change which did not arise initially as a consequence of need but rather as a consequence of random, spontaneous events. Those random, spontaneous, events were, for example, mutations in the genes. And later when the genetic code, which translates the information in those genes into proteins, was found to be essentially universal throughout biology, the story seeme

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,

You would think that evolutionists would learn from their mistakes regarding "vestigial organs" (claiming that if they could not see a use for them, well, they must be leftovers from our evolutionary past), then finding out that things considered "useless" and "leftover" are not so useless after all. Similarly, Intelligent Design proponents and creationists have been saying for years that the claim that "junk DNA" exists is absurd. Can you imagine the scientific and medical advances that would have been possible if people had a proper view of DNA instead of assuming that evolutionism is true? Both the "vestigial organs" and the "junk DNA" beliefs are base based on arrogance and assumptions. First, that scientists know enough about the extreme complexity of life to be able to declare something "useless". Second, they are interpreting the data through their fundamentally flawed evolutionary worldviews. When

Review by Cowboy Bob Sorensen Edited 6-10-2017 From the outset, I am denying you the sweet suspense and telling you that I strongly recommend Evolution Impossible: 12 Reasons Why Evolution Cannot Explain Life on Earth , and why. Unlike atheist trolls who give one-star ratings on Amazon for things they do not read but hate anyway, I actually read the book . My introduction to Dr. John F. Ashton was on a podcast of the radio show Crosstalk. You can read the introduction and listen to the MP3 here . Dr. Ashton has some impressive credentials. According to Creation Conversations: Dr. John F. Ashton PhD CChem FRACI is Adjunct Professor of Biomedical Sciences at Victoria University, Melbourne, and Adjunct Professor of Applied Sciences at the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology (RMIT) University, the largest Australian tertiary institution. He holds a BSc (Honors) with prize in chemistry and PhD in epistemology (a branch of philosophy dealing with the limits of knowled

morgueFile/hotblack EDIT: The link at the end of this post is now out of date and in dispute. See " A Fresh Look at Human-Chimp DNA Similarity " and " New Study Indicates Chimp DNA is 88% Similar to Human DNA ". Further research is planned. Some of us have believed for a long time that these are exciting times for creationists. The evidence supports creation, despite screeching to the contrary. Evidence refuting evolution is accumulating, and sloppy science (as well as unethical practices) of Darwin's Cheerleaders is coming to light. For example, that alleged huge simian similarity between humans and chimpanzees? The biases of evolutionary scientists caused selective citing and extremely misleading results. (By the way, even if the similarities were indeed very high, that is not proof of evolution. Instead, it shows a Designer using efficient methods.) This paper was released at the end of December, 2011. Here, take a good, hard look: To provide a

stock.xchng/Bessarro Most plants need sunlight in order to live. Red and blue are preferable. Bacteria on plant leaves need sunlight as well. Green light. They use use the green light that plants do not want. And bacteria absorb the most light at the same point that plants absorb no light; a win-win situation, not a "struggle for survival". Sorry, Papa Darwin, this is evidence for a Designer, not for evolution. Plant leaves convert light into chemical energy for use in cells. Their biochemistry specifically absorbs the blue and red areas of the visible light spectrum. Now researchers have discovered that light-harvesting bacteria living on the surfaces of leaves gather energy from the green part of the spectrum, meaning that they cooperate rather than compete with plants. How did this perfectly balanced energy-sharing system come about? Knowing that light-harvesting microbes live in aquatic environments, the researchers tested the hypothesis that similar bacteria live

It has been stated here before that evolution defies common sense — a suspension of disbelief similar to that employed when watching things like Doctor Who. We are told by scientists (and especially by under-educated popularizers of evolution) the just-so stories that something evolved, and to simply accept the assertion as fact. When some of us dare to actually stop and think about it, we consider the mechanisms of evolution, the intricacy of organisms, how many things must be in place at the same time &c., then we realize that evolution really does not add up. morgueFile/mzacha For example, most plants need sunlight to survive, yes? But they cannot have all of it. They have a UV protection system in their cells. Every aspect of it had to be in place from the beginning. If it was not, then the plants would have died off. Take a look: A team of scientists led by researchers at the Scripps Research Institute and the University of Glasgow investigated the marvelous mechanism

morgueFile/Thea Olsen Sago palms, like the Wollemi pine , are irritants to evolutionists. They are found in fossil layers that are presumed to be 250 million years old. And yet, their descendants are found virtually unchanged today. Another story is that they only began diversifying 10 million years ago. Wait, what? Which is it? Evolutionary biologists, paleontologists and botanists who deal with these palms (as well as fundamentalist evolutionists) presuppose that evolution is a "fact" — some even erroneously call evolution a "law". There should be signs of evolution, yes? No. Creationists do not have these conundrums to negate their theories. Cycads, also called "sago palms," are cone-bearing plants with long leathery shoots that often adorn dinosaur dioramas. Though there are about 11 living cycad genera, which further divide into about 300 species, many more once existed but are now known only from fossils. The oldest rock layers that con