50,000 generations of E coli prove evolution wrong

Share this page!

Ignoring that evolution always misses steps to actually proving itself does not make it true. There is a reason that a person must first understand that there are no absolutes before they can understand evolution. The reality of believing there are no absolutes means truth becomes a huge grey area. And anyone can take an idea like evolution and make it look true without it actually being true.

The other problem associated with this, is that atheists like to make micro and macro evolution sound like the same thing. Or that micro to infinity proves macro. The problem with this logic is 2 fold.

  • If they are one in the same, why give them different names?
  • Claiming micro to infinity makes macro evolution leaves out one very important step. And that is to know if there are limitations to micro evolution that would keep it from equaling macro evolution. Because unless this can be tested and observed a huge assumption is being made that micro will = macro with no problems. That’s not science.

Assuming with no observation leaves a huge door open to be proven wrong.

Example: Light speed for years has been claimed to be a constant. The problem is that we live in a gravity environment, and light does not always travel under the influence of gravity as travels in space. So we don;t know if light changes speed when there is no gravity around. But recently science has been able to:

So all this means is that the speed of light is no longer constant. This puts into question every book, paper, theory etc…. That is based on the speed of light being constant. All of this is because some people wanted to make an assumption about light when they did not have all the facts. And because that assumption fits nicely with the theory of evolution and brings into question the Biblical creation. But now since all that’s in question the tide has turned and everything science has assumed on the speed of light being constant is now in question.

Some of what this puts into question are:

  • How far stars and planets are away from us.
  • How old stars or planets are because a light year no longer applies when the speed of light is no longer constant.
  • Theories based on this no longer valid.
  • All papers and books based on this no longer valid.

All because someone decided to assume. Now the question is: How long until science decides to admit to being wrong and correcting all this? From what has been witnessed with evolution and correcting mistakes there, I suspect it won;t be in our lifetime. 50 plus years is the norm for evolution.

Here we have a couple of videos on this experiment where the atheists tried to make it sound like this was the greatest achievement of proving evolution. Well E-coli remaining E-coli actually proves what we creationists have been claiming for a long time.

1) Changes have limitations.
2) Evolution to the point claimed (single cell to all that we see) is not observable and is a lie aka fallacy.

So watch the videos if you can stand their long winded attempt to make the failure sound like a success. So much effort in lying to only say: There is not God.

Video

Video

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