Science trying to play God, has it been taken to far (Part 1)?

Share this page!

We have all heard of genetically modified foods also known as GMOs. We are all told that scientific altering of plants, animals, and humans will benefit us with a better society. But here’s the problem. Our biosphere, plants, animals, etc… Are balanced and made to work together already. But here comes science telling us they will make things better. But what is all this really about? Money and control.

In the video below which is a trailer of the movie named: Life running out of control (which can be seen on Netflix). You will see how GMO plants have ruined farmland in Canada. Because genetically altered Canola plants seeds have blown onto every farm making it to where no farm can grow un-genetically altered Canola plants. In the full length video it shows where farmers are suing one another because their seeds blown onto another farmer’s land is making money for the other farmer who did not buy the seed.

India is the testing ground which has made India’s population mad. The farmers over there invest in the genetically altered seeds that cost 3 times as much with a promise of a larger crop. To do this they have to get a loan. To only find that the crop cannot stand up to plant disease. So they go get another loan and buy different chemicals from the same company with another promise that the chemical will take care of their problem. By this time the farmer is so far in debt he cannot pay it back. And in that country the farmer in such a situation either has to sell his land, or to avoid disgrace and be able to hand that land down to the next generation, commit suicide. And many do. In that country suicide is the only thing that completely releases a person from debt.

Video

Breeding traits in or out is another form of genetic altering of what already exist. Below is a video where they took a cow and bread it to make more meat so the farmer can make more money. Science will do anything for money as you will see.

Video

Seeing how they have made a cow, that in my opinion, looks deformed shows just how far science will go to make money and get control. Why do I say control? For the farmer to compete, he has to do as the other farmers do or go out of business. So basically the farmers are forced to use what science comes up with, and we are the ones who then are forced to buy and consume what science has altered. One of the problems with genetically altered food is that it 99% of the time it has about half or less than half of the nutrients we need. And because or bodies are not made to use genetically altered food, we don’t process it like we would non-genetically altered food.

And here is a video on human genetic experiments will be done altering our DNA by splicing in actual animal DNA.

Video

And here is an example of a genetically altered pig. The pig was altered to have the skin of a cow for better slaughtering purposes. Problem is the pig is so deformed it can hardly stand or walk. They had to force it to stand just to take this picture.

A perfect example of food altering to make money that’s harming us is the over use of High Fructose Corn Syrup (HFC) as a sweetener. Our bodies were made to metabolize normal sugars, not HFC. The result of our bodies not being able to metabolize this HFC is that our blood sugar gets way to high and we become diabetic. And when we become diabetic we either have to take a pill, get injections, or both. Again science rakes in even more money off a problem they started. Diabetes is on the rise and it is blamed on people becoming overweight. But what they do not tell you is what the body cannot metabolize it will turn into fat. And since our bodies cannot metabolize HFC, it makes us fat and diabetic.

Example: My mother had a type of diabetes that could be controlled by diet, but she still had to take her blood sugar test to make sure she did not have to take a pill. What we found out doing this was that certain foods would shoot her blood sugar up while other would not. A perfect example of HFC causing problems is that my mother could eat ice cream that only was sweetened with sugar, but if she ate ice cream that had HFC as the sweetener she would have to take a pill to bring down her blood sugar. We found a brand of ice cream named Bryers that only uses sugar and no HFC. She could eat that and no blood sugar problems. And this was repeatable so it would be considered an empirical example.

A video that confirms more of what was said here is in Part 2: http://yecheadquarters.org/?p=1032

Update: Synthetic DNA called XNA has been made. This XNA can be translated into DNA which means this opens the door for science to experiment with life. This could lead to cures but we also know that this can also form what is known as superviruses because the virus will mutate to resist what the new immune system from the XNA altered life-form throws at it. Viruses that nothing can stop can form and can cause suffering and death. To do this type of research also requires all types of life to be experimented on. So there will be more suffering among the animal kingdom as science tries to be god again.

And because it has been determined that babies in the womb are not alive so that they can be aborted, and science will need humans to experiment on as well. Don’t be surprised when it’s approved for them to take unborn babies that were going to be aborted and do these things to them just to watch and see what happens. And because the XNA can be duplicated the changes made to animal or human can be passed on to the next generation. So even though what they do with the XNA to help the adult possibly to survive an incurable disease may make the offspring deformed or to even be born dead.

.

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