Anyone who believes in evolution needs to watch the documentary on the Parajo Dunes meeting. The top scientific minds in their fields merged their knowledge. Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University who also wrote a text book supporting evolution. Dr. Michael Behe Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Those are just two, all of them "were" advocates of evolution until they were awakened by the science itself. They all felt betrayed by the lies they had been taught.
Dr. Behe's defining moment was when he was looking into the mechanism inside of cells. He coined the term "irreducible complexity". Meaning if you take one single part away the mechanism won't work and the cell would die. All the parts of the mechanism had to be in place for the mechanism to work. It's impossible for the parts to come together separately because the cell would have died before that could come about.
It's a really good documentary if anyone wants to watch it:
Seriously, you have to suppress the truth in order to believe in evolution. God's existence and His divine nature is clearly seen from what He has created. His fingerprints are all over the place, so that all men are without excuse.
Humans are one of the few mammals incapable of producing its own vitamin C. Other than humans; guinea pigs, bats and dry-nosed primates have lost their ability to produce vitamin C
Astronaut’s circadian clock changes to circadian clock of Mars.
Most mammals produce Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) (Alpha-gal) sugars. Humans do not have naturally occurring alpha-gal coating their cell membranes like most other mammals do. Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) is a sugar structure found in glycoproteins and glycolipids from all mammals except old world primates, including humans. Maybe this is one reason why humans are not a desirable food source for carnivores. We taste bad.
In ancestral Old World monkeys and apes, the gene for the enzyme α-1,3-galactosyltransferase that is essential for the synthesis of α-Gal was inactivated [3]. Therefore, humans and recent Old World primates do not express α-Gal and this structure is highly immunogenic for them.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6344609/
Humans compared to all other animals find that humans have a:
Complete lack of robustness.
Back problems
Hip problems
Knee problems.
Only adult human brains shrink.
Cannot breathe while drinking. Primates can.
12 Ways Humans are NOT Primates
BONES – Much thinner and lighter
MUSCLES – 5 to 10 times weaker
SKIN & ADIPOSE TISSUE – Handicaps
BODY HAIR – Missing, pattern reversed
HEAD HAIR & NAILS – Must be trimmed
SKULLS & BRAINS – Not in same ball park
LOCOMOTION – Most obvious difference
SPEECH – Throats completely redesigned
SEX – No signs of typical Oestrus cycles
GENETIC DISORDERS – Over 4000 !!!
CHROMOSOMES – Reduced to 46 from 48
Humans are only mammal incapable of producing its own Vitamin C.
Humans are so radically different than primates and all creatures of this world that the theory of evolution becomes comparable to the story of Santa Claus. Darwin's Theory of evolution is based on the sequence provided in Genesis, to which Darwin used as the basis to his fantastic hypothesis. Darwin observed phenotypical adaptation characteristics that all animals have for survival. Adaptation is common and is mistakenly called evolution when it is the verb describing phenotype adaptation to its environment. Darwin himself was a polygenesis initially, but by the pressure of the Vatican, Darwin changed his tune to what was acceptable to the Church and became a proponent of monogenesis theory. Yes, the Catholic church promoted monogenesis evolution to compete with creationism. Darwin helped to establish this, and used to utterly destroy polygenesism.
If it helps, his grandfather was a confirmed freemason (and it was rumored that Charles was one himself- certainly his family had a few prominent members).
If you can provide the source for this I'll update my thesis. It's been some time since I last researched this, but I seem to recall reading that only humans cannot produce their own vitamin c.
If you type "mammals who cant make vitamin c" in your preferred search engine -mine is Brave-, you will get a plethora of links to explore to your heart's delight concerning the matter.
It exists to a degree, but there are massive gaps in the logic.
An example is the angler fish. Evolution says it slowly evolved a natural fishing rod from its head, which it uses to bait other fish close to its predatory jaws. Ok cool, then what did the in-between species of this specialized fish look like? And what was the evolutionary advantage of a non-functional half rod sticking out of the head of the in-between species? Why would the in-between species continue to evolve if it had a non-functional appendage sticking out of its head?
It's the requirement of missing links like this that kill the theory.
I am not espousing the broader scope of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as some sort of truth, but your argument is not well formed.
We aren't descendents of chimps they have 24 chromosomes
Evolution doesn't say we are the descendants of chimpanzees. It says that chimpanzees and humans have a most recent common ancestor (MRCA). In addition, the ploidy number (number of chromosomes) is irrelevant. It could easily be that the MRCA of both chimps and humans had 23, or 24, or 120 chromosomes (unlikely, even within the theory, but not impossible). The theory of evolution relies on changes in ploidy number in successive generations.
Indeed, hybridization between different ploidy numbers happens all the time. "Speciation," on the ToE's Tree of Life is a divergent node; whereby I mean, some species is a node, and the branches are it's children (or great-great, etc. grandchildren). Hybridization on the other hand, would be a convergent node on the tree of life (two branches come together). This hybridization process, which is almost completely ignored in the ToE (though exploited in plant biology on a daily basis) is a far greater challenge to the theory than your specific DNA focused protests (which again, are not well formed. Indeed, none is an actual problem at all within the theory). Hybridization is the real monkey wrench (so to speak) in the ToE.
It could very well be that all of the "missing links" we've found (where there are fossils that have similar features to supposed "descendants") could all be convergent nodes, instead of the divergent nodes the ToE espouses.
A worse problem imo for the ToE is the LUCA problem, where LUCA stands for the Last Universal Common Ancestor. You can't start the process without a cell, and we have no idea how the first cell could have possibly come about, even in theory.
The worst problem imo for the ToE is that we have exactly zero good solid direct evidence of speciation (there is some evidence of created "speciation" in fruit flies in a lab through induced genetic damage, though it is a fairly large stretch to use the word "speciation" for the results). There is a metric fuckton of evidence of genetic adaptation (think of it as "evolution light") and some fossil evidence of "missing links" (though most of it is far weaker than espoused, some is not), but we have never seen a species split into two different species, much less a different family. And of course we haven't, because in the ToE that takes millions of years, making it impossible within the theory to ever have direct evidence to support it..
Of note, we have seen different species and indeed, different families have hybrid offspring however, and that is never discussed in the ToE.
Also interesting to note, Darwin's finches gained their adaptation not through genetic differences, but through epigenetic differences (a code that lays on top of the DNA code). That is another wrench in the theory that is never talked about, though it isn't particularly damning by itself, just interesting.
I think the process of evolution is well established. Please, distinguish between the "origin of life" and the "origin of species". Science only has a very fractional idea of how the first cell got going. Sure, you put lightning through a primordial soup and aminoacids can form. I can imagine it happened, but the step from single cell life to multicellular... that is far more difficult for me.
But evolutionary processes are at work and it has been proven even in simple, but real scenarios. For instance, in the US there was this lake with some type of fish in it. It had no natural predators, until these were reintroduced. It took a mere 56 years for these fish to redevelop their armor. They went from very little armor to being heavily armored.
However, this does not mean evolution is the whole story. It is clear these fish had the genes for building armor and spikes and obviously, slightly more armored fish had a slightly higher chance of survival, given being hunted by these reintroduced predators. What baffles me is how the genes came into being in the first place. How does an organism go from not knowing how to build armor to getting a gene that encodes for all of the processes involved...?
Other examples of evolution in practice is island-dwarfism, which has been observed in elephants. Or inversely, birds flying to islands where they lose flight and grow huge, because there are no predators. Also, look a polar bears. Polar bears are just larger, white brown bears that split off a few tens of thousands of years ago. They can mingle and procreate with brown bears no problem. Polar bears only exist when brown bears wander off to seek new feeding grounds when there are polar ice caps.
But yeah, humans are pretty weird. To my knowledge there are only two organisms that can sweat to regulate body temperature. Humans. And pigs.
It tries to claim that variation is proof of speciation.
But the problem remains, as you point out, that there is no good evidence of any new genetic material, which is a hard requirement for the entire thing to work.
Also, one big problem with the first cell, at least from what I've heard, is that it couldn't have happened with oxygen due to the chemical reactions that would occur. Even if life could exist in its primitive form without oxygen, at what point did oxygen appear for life that needed it to exist? If trees make oxygen, and humans make carbon dioxide, both would need to exist together. How could they simultaneously "evolve" without each other to make them work in the first place. This seems ridiculous and a big reach.
The only possibility I see is that at one point either animals or plants were able to output O2/CO2 without an input, which is ridiculous.
Evolution is real, but humans didn’t evolve from apes on earth. Humans are seeded on Earth.. Darwinism was started in order to hide the real origins of humanity. Read the protocols of the elders of Zion. They tell you who Darwin was and his purpose.
Easier example for evolutionary process is adaptation… evolution is simply adaptation observed over millions of years.
The reason the missing link exist is because they don’t want to tell you the truth. There was already primitive man living here on Earth before the arrival of the humans from Mars. Cairo means those who came from Mars… Cairo was the first settlement of Egypt and the birth of that empire.
We can see changes that have taken over millions of years. Plant fossils and other animal fossils compared to current living plants and animals.
You think too small. Expand
Evolution is real, the story about humans coming from apes is the bull shit part. There are two branches of humans on earth. Those who already existed here and crated, and those who came here and nearly wiped out the natives. Why do Europeans have caveman DNA but the same is not observed in SubSaharan DNA?
How did Cain find a settlement after he was kicked out to wonder the earth… if Cain came from the first humans, why was there settlements already existing outside of Eden?
How did Cain find a settlement after he was kicked out to wonder the earth… if Cain came from the first humans, why was there settlements already existing outside of Eden?
Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters just like the Biblical text says. With DNA that was unaltered by degeneration, the sons of Adam and Eve were able to intermarry and reproduce without fear of genetic defects.
You have a very unique understanding/use of the word "evolution."
To gain new species one need new information inputted into the natural system. The natural system itself doesnt do that nor does it have the capability to do so.
Tell me to expand my thinking again.
Maybe you've expanded your thinking too much and now your brain is about to fall out?
Example. Two different groups of the same species separated over time and adapt to different parts of the planet. Assume they encounter each other again and breed with each others DNA. You will se changes due to that long term and separation of development due to environmental and social differences. Is not rocket science
What a blind faith statement you just made! Borders on a religious proclamation.
I dont have enough faith the be a Methodological Evolutionists.
In fact, you're a little outdated in your thinking. Stephen J Gould "adapted" the ToE to Punctuated Equilibrium to try and make Darwinism fit the fossil record - hint...it's even more of a farse than Darwinian gradualism. Look it up if your confused.
Just a bunch of made up crap, to let the ungodly feel good.
Yes!
Darwinian Evolution is a fairy tail made for those who are afraid of the Light.
Anyone who believes in evolution needs to watch the documentary on the Parajo Dunes meeting. The top scientific minds in their fields merged their knowledge. Dean H. Kenyon is Professor Emeritus of Biology at San Francisco State University who also wrote a text book supporting evolution. Dr. Michael Behe Lehigh University in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania and as a senior fellow of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture. Those are just two, all of them "were" advocates of evolution until they were awakened by the science itself. They all felt betrayed by the lies they had been taught.
Dr. Behe's defining moment was when he was looking into the mechanism inside of cells. He coined the term "irreducible complexity". Meaning if you take one single part away the mechanism won't work and the cell would die. All the parts of the mechanism had to be in place for the mechanism to work. It's impossible for the parts to come together separately because the cell would have died before that could come about.
It's a really good documentary if anyone wants to watch it:
Documentary Unlocking the Mystery of Life Intelligent Design
I'm going to leave a comment so I can get back to this video later.
Great comment! Will check out video and put the irreducible complexity example to memory.
Dems are descendents of scorpions. /sarc
Seriously, you have to suppress the truth in order to believe in evolution. God's existence and His divine nature is clearly seen from what He has created. His fingerprints are all over the place, so that all men are without excuse.
Quite right............ and there's always more.
Humans are one of the few mammals incapable of producing its own vitamin C. Other than humans; guinea pigs, bats and dry-nosed primates have lost their ability to produce vitamin C
Astronaut’s circadian clock changes to circadian clock of Mars.
Most mammals produce Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) (Alpha-gal) sugars. Humans do not have naturally occurring alpha-gal coating their cell membranes like most other mammals do. Galactose-alpha-1,3-galactose (α-gal) is a sugar structure found in glycoproteins and glycolipids from all mammals except old world primates, including humans. Maybe this is one reason why humans are not a desirable food source for carnivores. We taste bad.
In ancestral Old World monkeys and apes, the gene for the enzyme α-1,3-galactosyltransferase that is essential for the synthesis of α-Gal was inactivated [3]. Therefore, humans and recent Old World primates do not express α-Gal and this structure is highly immunogenic for them. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6344609/
Humans compared to all other animals find that humans have a:
12 Ways Humans are NOT Primates
Humans are so radically different than primates and all creatures of this world that the theory of evolution becomes comparable to the story of Santa Claus. Darwin's Theory of evolution is based on the sequence provided in Genesis, to which Darwin used as the basis to his fantastic hypothesis. Darwin observed phenotypical adaptation characteristics that all animals have for survival. Adaptation is common and is mistakenly called evolution when it is the verb describing phenotype adaptation to its environment. Darwin himself was a polygenesis initially, but by the pressure of the Vatican, Darwin changed his tune to what was acceptable to the Church and became a proponent of monogenesis theory. Yes, the Catholic church promoted monogenesis evolution to compete with creationism. Darwin helped to establish this, and used to utterly destroy polygenesism.
If it helps, his grandfather was a confirmed freemason (and it was rumored that Charles was one himself- certainly his family had a few prominent members).
Erasmus Darwin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erasmus_Darwin
Interesting and thought provoking comment fren, nice work.
I read somewhere that bats, guinea pigs and some primates, all mammals, cannot make their own vitamin c either.
If you can provide the source for this I'll update my thesis. It's been some time since I last researched this, but I seem to recall reading that only humans cannot produce their own vitamin c.
If you type "mammals who cant make vitamin c" in your preferred search engine -mine is Brave-, you will get a plethora of links to explore to your heart's delight concerning the matter.
I amended the above. and added, other than humans; guinea pigs, bats and dry-nosed primates have lost their ability to produce vitamin C
Keep posts on Q pls
This person has a history of posting things that are not related to Q, including this one.
https://greatawakening.win/p/16an0oCdJ0/does-capitalism-really-work/
Evolution posits that monkeys and humans split off from a common ancestor long ago, not that humans descended from chimps.
It's all baloney AFAIC but that's how I learned it.
It exists to a degree, but there are massive gaps in the logic.
An example is the angler fish. Evolution says it slowly evolved a natural fishing rod from its head, which it uses to bait other fish close to its predatory jaws. Ok cool, then what did the in-between species of this specialized fish look like? And what was the evolutionary advantage of a non-functional half rod sticking out of the head of the in-between species? Why would the in-between species continue to evolve if it had a non-functional appendage sticking out of its head?
It's the requirement of missing links like this that kill the theory.
Correction everything is a lie.
I am not espousing the broader scope of the Theory of Evolution (ToE) as some sort of truth, but your argument is not well formed.
Evolution doesn't say we are the descendants of chimpanzees. It says that chimpanzees and humans have a most recent common ancestor (MRCA). In addition, the ploidy number (number of chromosomes) is irrelevant. It could easily be that the MRCA of both chimps and humans had 23, or 24, or 120 chromosomes (unlikely, even within the theory, but not impossible). The theory of evolution relies on changes in ploidy number in successive generations.
Indeed, hybridization between different ploidy numbers happens all the time. "Speciation," on the ToE's Tree of Life is a divergent node; whereby I mean, some species is a node, and the branches are it's children (or great-great, etc. grandchildren). Hybridization on the other hand, would be a convergent node on the tree of life (two branches come together). This hybridization process, which is almost completely ignored in the ToE (though exploited in plant biology on a daily basis) is a far greater challenge to the theory than your specific DNA focused protests (which again, are not well formed. Indeed, none is an actual problem at all within the theory). Hybridization is the real monkey wrench (so to speak) in the ToE.
It could very well be that all of the "missing links" we've found (where there are fossils that have similar features to supposed "descendants") could all be convergent nodes, instead of the divergent nodes the ToE espouses.
A worse problem imo for the ToE is the LUCA problem, where LUCA stands for the Last Universal Common Ancestor. You can't start the process without a cell, and we have no idea how the first cell could have possibly come about, even in theory.
The worst problem imo for the ToE is that we have exactly zero good solid direct evidence of speciation (there is some evidence of created "speciation" in fruit flies in a lab through induced genetic damage, though it is a fairly large stretch to use the word "speciation" for the results). There is a metric fuckton of evidence of genetic adaptation (think of it as "evolution light") and some fossil evidence of "missing links" (though most of it is far weaker than espoused, some is not), but we have never seen a species split into two different species, much less a different family. And of course we haven't, because in the ToE that takes millions of years, making it impossible within the theory to ever have direct evidence to support it..
Of note, we have seen different species and indeed, different families have hybrid offspring however, and that is never discussed in the ToE.
Also interesting to note, Darwin's finches gained their adaptation not through genetic differences, but through epigenetic differences (a code that lays on top of the DNA code). That is another wrench in the theory that is never talked about, though it isn't particularly damning by itself, just interesting.
The ET's changed the DNA when they did the upgrade.
I think the process of evolution is well established. Please, distinguish between the "origin of life" and the "origin of species". Science only has a very fractional idea of how the first cell got going. Sure, you put lightning through a primordial soup and aminoacids can form. I can imagine it happened, but the step from single cell life to multicellular... that is far more difficult for me.
But evolutionary processes are at work and it has been proven even in simple, but real scenarios. For instance, in the US there was this lake with some type of fish in it. It had no natural predators, until these were reintroduced. It took a mere 56 years for these fish to redevelop their armor. They went from very little armor to being heavily armored.
However, this does not mean evolution is the whole story. It is clear these fish had the genes for building armor and spikes and obviously, slightly more armored fish had a slightly higher chance of survival, given being hunted by these reintroduced predators. What baffles me is how the genes came into being in the first place. How does an organism go from not knowing how to build armor to getting a gene that encodes for all of the processes involved...?
Other examples of evolution in practice is island-dwarfism, which has been observed in elephants. Or inversely, birds flying to islands where they lose flight and grow huge, because there are no predators. Also, look a polar bears. Polar bears are just larger, white brown bears that split off a few tens of thousands of years ago. They can mingle and procreate with brown bears no problem. Polar bears only exist when brown bears wander off to seek new feeding grounds when there are polar ice caps.
But yeah, humans are pretty weird. To my knowledge there are only two organisms that can sweat to regulate body temperature. Humans. And pigs.
This is why the theory is not well established.
It tries to claim that variation is proof of speciation.
But the problem remains, as you point out, that there is no good evidence of any new genetic material, which is a hard requirement for the entire thing to work.
Also, one big problem with the first cell, at least from what I've heard, is that it couldn't have happened with oxygen due to the chemical reactions that would occur. Even if life could exist in its primitive form without oxygen, at what point did oxygen appear for life that needed it to exist? If trees make oxygen, and humans make carbon dioxide, both would need to exist together. How could they simultaneously "evolve" without each other to make them work in the first place. This seems ridiculous and a big reach.
The only possibility I see is that at one point either animals or plants were able to output O2/CO2 without an input, which is ridiculous.
Deportation requested. This has NOTHING to do with Q. This is a clear case of topic dilution.
Evolution is real, but humans didn’t evolve from apes on earth. Humans are seeded on Earth.. Darwinism was started in order to hide the real origins of humanity. Read the protocols of the elders of Zion. They tell you who Darwin was and his purpose.
Easier example for evolutionary process is adaptation… evolution is simply adaptation observed over millions of years.
The reason the missing link exist is because they don’t want to tell you the truth. There was already primitive man living here on Earth before the arrival of the humans from Mars. Cairo means those who came from Mars… Cairo was the first settlement of Egypt and the birth of that empire.
Nothing is "observed" over millions of years.
We can see changes that have taken over millions of years. Plant fossils and other animal fossils compared to current living plants and animals.
You think too small. Expand
Evolution is real, the story about humans coming from apes is the bull shit part. There are two branches of humans on earth. Those who already existed here and crated, and those who came here and nearly wiped out the natives. Why do Europeans have caveman DNA but the same is not observed in SubSaharan DNA?
How did Cain find a settlement after he was kicked out to wonder the earth… if Cain came from the first humans, why was there settlements already existing outside of Eden?
Adam and Eve had other sons and daughters just like the Biblical text says. With DNA that was unaltered by degeneration, the sons of Adam and Eve were able to intermarry and reproduce without fear of genetic defects.
You have a very unique understanding/use of the word "evolution."
To gain new species one need new information inputted into the natural system. The natural system itself doesnt do that nor does it have the capability to do so.
Tell me to expand my thinking again.
Maybe you've expanded your thinking too much and now your brain is about to fall out?
Example. Two different groups of the same species separated over time and adapt to different parts of the planet. Assume they encounter each other again and breed with each others DNA. You will se changes due to that long term and separation of development due to environmental and social differences. Is not rocket science
They still give birth to the same species. No new DNA has been entered.
Adaptation WITHIN a species is not evidence for Speciation.
Adaptation ACROSS species has never been observed, nor does the fossil record bare it out. Darwin knew this, so should you.
Over billions of generations you will see the change that is termed evolution.
What a blind faith statement you just made! Borders on a religious proclamation.
I dont have enough faith the be a Methodological Evolutionists.
In fact, you're a little outdated in your thinking. Stephen J Gould "adapted" the ToE to Punctuated Equilibrium to try and make Darwinism fit the fossil record - hint...it's even more of a farse than Darwinian gradualism. Look it up if your confused.
Would laugh if this is true
I guess is easier to downvote vs bringing in any supportive evidence
Highly encouraged to research… the information is easily found.
Samaria, Babylon, Egypt, MesoAmerica… you’ll find the answer there.