How to debate a evolutionist part two.

Share this page!

Please read parts one (link) before you read this… Making scientific evidence solely support evolution is more of an agenda and strategy which is not science but is conformism. To make the evidence look like it supports evolution only, the evolutionist scientists “leave out” the information that would leave the Theory of Evolution in question. This page will be compiled of such information which will only touch the surface of how far this goes. The reason for this is because this is done so much that to list all of it would be a website in it self. And who would want to read that much anyway? So this page will consists mainly of the major lists that will give the reader an idea of what is going on. Making people believe in evolution is basically a selling game that most some evolutionists are not even aware of. Example: If you go to a used car salesman, what information will he tell you about the car, and what information will he not tell you in order to make the sale? Only the good stuff. What you will see below is that only the good stuff gets told. The bad stuff they will withhold, and in some cases even deny it. You see once you are sold on something, un-selling you on the idea is much harder.

  • The DNA percentage comparison between Man and Chimps is probably the worst of it all. According to who you talk to the difference can be anywhere from 12% to .2%, and seems to change every 6 months going up and down. But percentages are simple math, right? So why leave out the main number in which the percentage was taken from? It’s because it puts evolution into question. The number the percent comes from is 3 billion. Knowing that the number is 3 billion (3,000,000,000) makes that percent look bigger, and us as humans not as close to chimps as was implied. The object of the sale was to not allow you to see that. Ask any evolutionist why the main number is hidden, and all you will get is excuses. How well is it hidden? More than half of the evolutionist I ask don’t know that number. They had the idea sold to them and never checked up on it.
  • The immune system problem. Google the “immune system and evolution” to see if any sites address how evolution works around the immune system. You will not find one, instead what you will find is sites on how the immune system evolved. The reason they won’t address this is because the immune system actually fights change. And knowing that animals immune systems are stronger than ours shows that change would be fought even harder in the lower evolved species. Example: If the immune system were weak enough to allow the changes evolutionists claim happened, we would all die from cancer. Why? Cancer is our own cells rebelling against the system by changing. Cancer cells mutate in our systems all the time. Our immune system kills them making it to where most of us won’t get cancer. So if the immune system was weaker back in time, all offspring would be sickly if not born dead. And not many parents would make it to an age to reproduce. Extinction would be favored more so than survival. This would keep life from evolving into things as complex as humans or any other animals that are complex.
  • Interdependent systems in animals and humans. Every system in the human body is dependent upon another system in order to work. There is no explanation on how each system evolved and worked until the other systems evolved to support them. Nor is there any way for evolutionist to tell us in what order did these systems evolved. Their salesman answer to convince us is that they all evolved at the same time. Knowing that each system has a different complexity (a word they do not like), means that no two systems would require the same number of mutations. Which means no two systems would evolve in the same amount of time to even remotely evolved together as implied. So to claim this is to also claim that evolution has perfect timing. Which boarders on intelligence because how does any evolution processes keep time to when to evolve something? Telling time = intelligence.
  • They will claim that time made the layers in the geologic column. Yet they cannot demonstrate the mechanism that causes time to form and “sort” layers. Yet water, like from a flood, will sort sediments into layers when shaken in a glass every time. And because this process can be tested in a lab, and retested with the same results every time. The claim that water sorted the layers from a flood would be empirical, while time “sorting” the layers is not. Age dating is not an absolute which means other possibilities have to be considered. And because evolutionists refuse to consider anything outside of supporting evolution, the belief becomes a form of conformism. Conformism is the main reason evolution is being sold more than it’s being proven. Conformism is not science.
  • Butterflies can only be created. Putting aside the process of what makes a butterfly, and focus on the results. You would think that in the evolution process that the colors on the wings are just colors. Much like colors on the hairs of other animals and insects. But that is not the case. Butterflies have microscopic scales on their wings that work very much the same way a prism separates sun light into colors. The scales reflect light, but only a certain wavelength of that light. Which means it’s not actual color that gives the butterfly it’s beauty, but how it’s wings refracts light into wavelengths of colors. There is absolutely no pressures from the environment that would make such an ability to evolve, nor is there any intelligence in the evolution process that would cause this.
  • The human eye. It’s not so much the complexity of the eye, but the design. How does the process that allowed it to evolve know:

1) What size it should be and where to put it?
2) That clear fluid is required to fill the eye?
3) What pressure to keep the fluid so the eye will stay inflated and not become damaged (too much pressure stops blood flow, to little and the eye shrinks)?
4) What angle to make the lens that would have to match the size of the eye?
5) How to focus that lens?
6) That the image would have to be upside down and the vision center of the brain would have to correct that?
7) That each eyeball would have to follow the other when the person looks to the left or right, up or down?
8. That a blood vessel needs to be in part of the vision center area to filter out UV rays?
9) That rods and cons are needed to see in the day and night?
10) That vision has to be processed in milliseconds. Example: If it took just 3 seconds to process what you see, then you could not hit a baseball. You could not drive a car because if one pulled out in front of you and you did not see it until 3 seconds later. You already hit it.
etc…

  • The human heart… The human is not only by design, but because it is essential for life it has to be in working order when it supposedly evolved. No chance for trial and error until it evolves correctly. Here is a list of a few things that has to be exactly right or the life dies.

1) The muscle of the heart has to be a type that never grows tired. So it’s different from every other muscle in the body. If this type of muscle was not used in the supposed first evolution attempt offspring would die in less than 24 hour. And no genes of what was needed next would be passed on to correct this.
2) The heart valves have to be in place to keep blood flowing in one direction.
3) The heart valves have to be made just so, so that the opening and closing section of it does not damage blood cells. If not this will cause the body to send blood clots out which are deadly because they cause everything from strokes to organ damage by cutting off blood flow. So the heart valve has to be right the first time, or death will occur.
4) The heart rhythm has to be just right as well. Wrong rhythm and the heart will not pump enough blood for the life to survive. Wrong rhythms can also cause extreme high or low blood pressure which is deadly as well.
5) The speed has to be variable that responds to the body’s need for oxygen.
6) In order for the tireless muscle to work for the heart, a balance is needed in the body of: Potassium, calcium, magnesium, CoQ10 enzyme, and adequate blood supply for oxygen. If any one of these things are off, irregular heart beat and heart damage can occur and death can be the result.
etc…

  • The origins of life. Abiogenesis is implied to have proven that life was created from dead matter. No life has ever been created from dead matter. This one problem in itself disproves evolution because it disproves that life arose naturally then evolved. If life cannot happen naturally, then a Godless evolution cannot happen either. Why is that important? Evolution is solely based on non-intelligent Godless creation of life from dead matter. So when life cannot be proven to have arisen any other way than a God filled creation, then by default evolution is proven wrong.
  • The blood brain barrier (BBB). The BBB filters out almost all harmful chemicals that can do damage to the brain. Without the BBB the brain could not develop and would be damage. Intelligence for survival would be impossible with a damaged brain therefore life would die. So the BBB would have to be fully functional the first time or life dies.
  • The pancreas. The pancreas puts out insulin which is very important for survival. But, to much and life dies, to little and life dies. Anyone with diabetes knows this very well because they have to deal with regulating what their pancreas cannot.

There are also support mechanism of evolution that have problems. Such as what they claim takes millions of years yet in recent years has been proven wrong. More of the selling of time that evolution requires in order not to put evolution into question. More of what evolutionist won’t tell you so that you will believe.

  • Oil takes millions of years to form, or does it?
  • Coal takes millions of years to form, or does it?
  • Blood, tissue and DNA will not last millions of years, or did a million years pass?

More to come….

Share this page!

 

 

 

YouTube

 

 

 

FaceBook Feed
Comments Box SVG iconsUsed for the like, share, comment, and reaction icons
Good Fight Ministries
Good Fight Ministries

Joe Schimmel’s Testimony

Blessed Hope Chapel
Wed. May 22, 2019 – Wednesday Night Bible Study led by Pastor Joe Schimmel.
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Thank you for sharing Pastor Joe!!

Ark Encounter
Ark Encounter
Veterans receive free admission on Memorial Day (May 27)!

Veterans receive free admission on Memorial Day (May 27)! ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Ruthann Blizzard Michael Blizzard

Uh, that's not nearly enough manpower for a ship that size.

See ya'll next weekend! Can't wait!

Creation Research Society
Creation Research Society
The Role of Epigenetics in Adaptation, Part 1

The following Matters of Fact column by CRS board member Dr. Jean Lightner appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 2018.

Q.  Does epigenetics play a role in adaptation? 
A.  Physiologist: YES! Evolutionary biologist: Maybe…. 

Adaptation, in the sense that we will discuss, can be defined as changes which help an organism become better suited to its environment. It is related to one of the foundational characteristics of life: the ability to respond to the environment. Physiological adaptation relies on epigenetics, or modifications that can affect gene expression. This does not change the sequence of DNA, but allows genes to be up or down regulated to suit the needs of the organism (see Lightner, 2013). 

There are several known mechanisms of epigenetic regulation (Figure 1): 

1) histone modification (including acetylation, phosphorylation, and methylation) 

2) cytosine methylation in DNA 

3) various non-coding RNA molecules (miRNA, siRNA, piRNA, and lncRNA) 

These mechanisms vary in the timeframe over which they typically act, allowing for both rapid changes and more stable, long-term changes. 

Scientists had assumed that these types of changes could not be inherited by offspring. The basis for this was largely philosophical: the Modern Synthesis (aka Neo-Darwinism) was predicated on the idea that the environment could not direct phenotypic change. Instead, the source of phenotypic variation is claimed to be from random genetic mutations; natural selection then reduces or eliminates less fit variants. To support the conjecture that epigenetic changes are not heritable, some scientists pointed to the observation that DNA methylation patterns are reset in pathways leading to offspring (i.e., germ cell formation and fertilization). However, it is now recognized that the reset of DNA methylation isn’t always complete, and it is not the only mechanism involved in trans-generational epigenetic inheritance (Morgan et al., 1999; Rassoulzadegan et al., 2006). 

For several decades now, it has been known that epigenetic inheritance can provide a source of heritable variation. However, it is not yet clear how often it does so, and what role it plays in adaptation of populations. Research has increased on this important topic, but much remains to be learned. One recent review article identified a web of potential interactions. It also pointed out that understanding patterns of natural epigenetic variation, the causes of that variation, and the consequences of it are necessary to adequately address the role it may have in adaptation (Richards et al., 2017). 

Factors influencing epigenetic variation 

In some studies it appears that DNA methylation differences are associated with underlying genetic differences. This raises the possibility of genetic control of epigenetic variability. It is also possible that a stable epimutation (heritable epigenetic change) could be inherited along with the underlying genetic sequence, thus causing the correlation. It has also been noted that epigenetic changes can influence genetic variation, specifically as it relates to silencing transposable elements, whose movement can change the sequence of a gene or its promoter (Richards et al., 2017). 

Some epimutations appear to arise stochastically. If these are stable over multiple generations, then natural selection may affect the pattern of variation. It is also known that environmental factors can effect heritable epigenetic changes, but the pattern and extent of this is not well known. Significant work needs to be done across different species, especially wild plants and animals, before reasonable generalizations can be made (Balao et al. 2018; Richards et al., 2017). 

FIGURE 1. A chromosome is made up of DNA coiled around proteins, called histones. There are three basic mechanisms by which epigenetic changes can be made. First, the tail of the histone proteins can undergo several types of modification (A), including phosphorylation (Ph), methylation (Me), and acetylation (Ac), that can affect accessibility of specific genes. Secondly, cytosine residues in DNA can be methylated (red dot) or un– methylated (green dot), the details of which are represented in section B of the figure. This affects gene transcription (the copying of DNA to make mRNA). Finally, various microRNAs (C) can bind mRNA to prevent synthesis into proteins. All of these mechanisms play a role in changing gene expression without affecting the DNA sequence. (Illustration is from Gómez-Díaz et al., 2012, and is used herein according to the CC BY license. )

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org

The Role of Epigenetics in Adaptation, Part 1

The following Matters of Fact column by CRS board member Dr. Jean Lightner appeared in Creation Matters, Vol. 23, No. 3, May/June 2018.

Q. Does epigenetics play a role in adaptation?
A. Physiologist: YES! Evolutionary biologist: Maybe….

Adaptation, in the sense that we will discuss, can be defined as changes which help an organism become better suited to its environment. It is related to one of the foundational characteristics of life: the ability to respond to the environment. Physiological adaptation relies on epigenetics, or modifications that can affect gene expression. This does not change the sequence of DNA, but allows genes to be up or down regulated to suit the needs of the organism (see Lightner, 2013).

There are several known mechanisms of epigenetic regulation (Figure 1):

1) histone modification (including acetylation, phosphorylation, and methylation)

2) cytosine methylation in DNA

3) various non-coding RNA molecules (miRNA, siRNA, piRNA, and lncRNA)

These mechanisms vary in the timeframe over which they typically act, allowing for both rapid changes and more stable, long-term changes.

Scientists had assumed that these types of changes could not be inherited by offspring. The basis for this was largely philosophical: the Modern Synthesis (aka Neo-Darwinism) was predicated on the idea that the environment could not direct phenotypic change. Instead, the source of phenotypic variation is claimed to be from random genetic mutations; natural selection then reduces or eliminates less fit variants. To support the conjecture that epigenetic changes are not heritable, some scientists pointed to the observation that DNA methylation patterns are reset in pathways leading to offspring (i.e., germ cell formation and fertilization). However, it is now recognized that the reset of DNA methylation isn’t always complete, and it is not the only mechanism involved in trans-generational epigenetic inheritance (Morgan et al., 1999; Rassoulzadegan et al., 2006).

For several decades now, it has been known that epigenetic inheritance can provide a source of heritable variation. However, it is not yet clear how often it does so, and what role it plays in adaptation of populations. Research has increased on this important topic, but much remains to be learned. One recent review article identified a web of potential interactions. It also pointed out that understanding patterns of natural epigenetic variation, the causes of that variation, and the consequences of it are necessary to adequately address the role it may have in adaptation (Richards et al., 2017).

Factors influencing epigenetic variation

In some studies it appears that DNA methylation differences are associated with underlying genetic differences. This raises the possibility of genetic control of epigenetic variability. It is also possible that a stable epimutation (heritable epigenetic change) could be inherited along with the underlying genetic sequence, thus causing the correlation. It has also been noted that epigenetic changes can influence genetic variation, specifically as it relates to silencing transposable elements, whose movement can change the sequence of a gene or its promoter (Richards et al., 2017).

Some epimutations appear to arise stochastically. If these are stable over multiple generations, then natural selection may affect the pattern of variation. It is also known that environmental factors can effect heritable epigenetic changes, but the pattern and extent of this is not well known. Significant work needs to be done across different species, especially wild plants and animals, before reasonable generalizations can be made (Balao et al. 2018; Richards et al., 2017).

FIGURE 1. A chromosome is made up of DNA coiled around proteins, called histones. There are three basic mechanisms by which epigenetic changes can be made. First, the tail of the histone proteins can undergo several types of modification (A), including phosphorylation (Ph), methylation (Me), and acetylation (Ac), that can affect accessibility of specific genes. Secondly, cytosine residues in DNA can be methylated (red dot) or un– methylated (green dot), the details of which are represented in section B of the figure. This affects gene transcription (the copying of DNA to make mRNA). Finally, various microRNAs (C) can bind mRNA to prevent synthesis into proteins. All of these mechanisms play a role in changing gene expression without affecting the DNA sequence. (Illustration is from Gómez-Díaz et al., 2012, and is used herein according to the CC BY license. )

Learn more about creation www.creationresearch.org
... See MoreSee Less

Hidden History of Evolution
Hidden History of Evolution
~ Issac

~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Evolution is a lie, based on unsupported assumptions.

Science leads to God
Science leads to God
Had to stop the test, cant have evolution proven wrong. ~ Issac

Had to stop the test, can't have evolution proven wrong. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

180 Movie
180 Movie

Are you one of the over 49,500 views who’s watched “7 Reasons” on YouTube since its release a week ago?

We’ve been so encouraged to read the many online comments, such as this one from YouTube:

"This is THE first time I’ve ever cried (quietly flowing down my cheeks and dripping off my chin kinda tears), regarding the abortion I had 9 years ago. I’ve LITERALLY NEVER felt convicted, not once before…And after watching this.. well, yeh.. I’ve just sat here frowning, now my eyes have dried, and thinking to myself, “Wow, what IS happening to me?!”…I’m a feminist, pro-choice (I thought), equality, love and peace to all kinda person. I guess I better think again................. Mind = blown. Thank you for this video."

If you haven't watched and shared it yet, watch "7 Reasons" free on YouTube at 7ReasonsMovie.com
... See MoreSee Less

Ray Comfort has mental retardation ... See MoreSee Less

Pray for Militant Atheist Page.
Pray for Militant Atheist Page.
n case you did not know this. ~ Issac

n case you did not know this. ~ IssacIn case you did not know this. ~ Issac ... See MoreSee Less

Where is the evolution?
Where is the evolution?
Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until its rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/living-fossils.html
The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australias earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or little mountain monkey - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina.
Reference: http://www.create.unsw.edu.au/news/2008-03-25_monito.html
The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”
reference: http://www.eartharchives.org/articles/scientists-uncover-two-new-species-of-elusive-south-american-marsupial/

Name: Monito del Monte
Status: Thought to be extinct until it's rediscovery.
Information: A remarkable, diminutive marsupial thought to have been extinct until one was discovered in a thicket of Chilean bamboo in the southern Andes.
Thought to exist: 55 million years ago.
Reference: http://historysevidenceofdinosaursandmen.weebly.com/…
"The fossilised ankle and ear bones are those of Australia's earliest known marsupial, Djarthia, a primitive mouse-like creature that lived 55 million years ago. ..a new study in the journal PLoS ONE [http://www.plosone.org/] has confirmed that Djarthia is also a primitive relative of the small marsupial known as the Monito del Monte - or "little mountain monkey" - from the dense humid forests of Chile and Argentina."
Reference: http://create.unsw.edu.au/news/…
"The monito del monte, Spanish for ‘little bush monkey’, named after its monkey-like partially prehensile tail, is a diminutive marsupial native to South America in the Valdivian temperate rain forests of the southern Andes (Chile and Argentina). It is the only extant species in the ancient order of Microbiotheria. ...Genetic studies show that this species retains the most primitive characteristics of its group, and thus is regarded as a “living fossil.”"
reference: http://eartharchives.org/articles/…
... See MoreSee Less

Comment on Facebook

Your picture makes it seem like the two species shown are found 55 Ma apart even though they are both modern species. Rather, it was the genus Djarthia (whose exact taxonomic position is uncertain) that occurs in the Paleocene, as noted in the PLOS paper you provided. This graphic is either a misunderstanding or diliberate misrepresentation of the references cited. May I ask what formal training in paleontology the admin of this page has had?

We didn't claim the skulls were from a 55 million year old fossil, it is the references that claim Monito del Monte is regarded as a living fossil and thought to exist: 55 million years ago.

Colby, please stop spamming the contrasts. There is no need to post the same link multiple times, Thank you.

I was just doing a one shot on each post. I didnt even think anyone even looked at this page anymore. I apologize.

Looks like the Colbinator deleted his post 😭

View more comments

Load more