Join John Adams, world renowned Intl Matchmaker, Thurs nights 8:30 EST for Live Webcasts with FREE Prizes!
And check out Five Reasons why you should attend a FREE Live AFA Seminar! See locations and details.


Scam free! Check out Christian Filipina - Meet Asian women with Christian values! Members screened.
Exclusive book offer! 75% off! How to Meet, Date and Marry Your Filipina Wife



View Active Topics       Latest 100 Topics       View Your Posts       FAQ Topics       Switch to Mobile


Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Discuss and talk about any general topic.

Moderators: jamesbond, fschmidt

Evolution

I believe in it. We're evolved baboons
8
57%
I don't believe in it. I believe in creation or another theory (mention below)
1
7%
I have formed no opinion yet but I am skeptical of it
0
No votes
I don't know the truth but I know Darwin's theory is a lie
4
29%
I believe in change over time (evolution) but not origin of species
1
7%
All the theories I have heard seem like bullshit to me
0
No votes
I do not care how life got started and how we arrived here
0
No votes
 
Total votes : 14

Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Postby odbo » Sat Oct 15, 2011 9:06 am

What are your thoughts on this?

Image

Image

Image

Legitimate questions
If birds evolved from reptiles, how did the wings form? If a reptile started growing wings little by little, it would be at a disadvantage. Survival of the fittest seems to dictate it would become extinct. Someone please explain this.

Image

Warning. Questioning evolution is not a politically correct. No discussion is allowed on certain key issues! Evolution for zombies is not simply a theory but a religion.

Here is an example of a typical atheist feminist zombie doing her enemy's bidding:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fmHN3JtyUXg[/youtube]

Post any good links you find. Not canned debates, rather claims that make a person think.
http://missinguniversemuseum.com/
odbo
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:40 pm







Postby Winston » Sat Oct 15, 2011 2:54 pm

Good point. Another problem is that there are no transitional fossils between birds and reptiles. For the theory to be correct, there would have to be many of them showing the gradual change from reptile to bird. But there aren't any. Even Darwin admitted that if no transitional fossils were found, that his theory would be incorrect. So based on his own theory, he is incorrect.

We already have discussions about this subject other threads.

http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9150
http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8625
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23609
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

interesting map of ethnicities

Postby odbo » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:00 am

Image
odbo
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:40 pm

Postby skateboardstephen » Thu Nov 24, 2011 10:58 am

does any one believe the first man and women was from africa? ha ha ha
se eu soubesse o que eu sei hoje, teria mando mulheres americanas para foder-se há muitos anos.que deus abençoe o brasil!
skateboardstephen
Junior Poster
 
Posts: 756
Joined: Wed May 18, 2011 10:11 pm
Location: salvador,brazil

Postby MrPeabody » Thu Nov 24, 2011 5:31 pm

I once knew a professor of biology who would go to debates and argue against evolution and he would usually win. But, he actually deeply believed in evolution. The point he was making was that most people who believe in evolution do so on faith just as the religionists believe in creation. Most of what people believe is shallow and it takes too much time to really dig into the science and figure out how it works. Another factor to keep in mind is that scientists now have a powerful new independent data source (besides fossils) to prove evolution, namely DNA studies. It's interesting that the Eastern religions don't have any conflicts with science, showing that the Eastern philosophers wisely avoided making off the cuff assertions about facts in the world that they couldn't have understood. Perhaps this is due to the Eastern awareness of knowing what one doesn't know, as opposed to the West which just makes it up as they go along. There was one assertion made however - the Buddha postulated the existence of the atom (the Kalapa) which was most likely the source of the Greek belief in the atom.
MrPeabody
Experienced Poster
 
Posts: 1246
Joined: Sun Apr 13, 2008 6:53 pm

Postby odbo » Sat Nov 26, 2011 12:30 am

IntoTheWild wrote:I'm not suprised that I'm alone so far! I was kinda getting the 'vibe' from this site that despite this site being supposedly 'free thinking' it's attracting mostly 'conservative' religious types. Hence the emphasis on marrying a good conservative wife from overseas where 'traditional values' still prevail. Wow even Winston belongs in that camp.

You must be joking.

#1) Free thinking means just that. It does not mean falling for the latest fad or liberal agenda. Being free thinking is not watching Zeitgeist, believing every word of it, then going to the "99%" rallies.

#2) This site draws a diverse group of men. All of which are to some extent products of their environment. Some of us have been more successful than others at deprogramming ourselves. Nevertheless most of the men here are atheists or only superficially religious and don't see anything particularly mystical about life.

There is no emphasis on marrying on here. There are countless posts on why NOT to get married. The few on here that want to get married want a woman with "traditional values". However I don't see why you're looking down on those men. Traditional values implies a woman who values loyalty and has the desire to create a family. Not a liberalized ultra-materialistic gold-digging whore who emasculates her husband then has 5 cocks shoved up her ass while her man is at work.

If you want to spend your life f***ing tattooed whores with silicone implants you're welcome to. Disinterest in this type of lifestyle does not mean you get to label us "conservative types". It makes us free men because we are in line with nature DESPITE the pressure, and it makes you a victim of the programming because you are going out of nature simply because the degenerate media convinced you to.

IntoTheWild wrote:I won't even bother debating evolution in such an environment!!! I have no need to 'convert' people to evolution

This site is about truth. If you can't give evidence or present a logical case why evolution is a factor in shaping our world then what is there to talk about? You're saying that if we already blindly believed in evolution, you would divulge the truth to us. If you're converting the converted, don't even bother calling it a debate.
odbo
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:40 pm

Postby Ghost » Sat Nov 26, 2011 8:31 am

...
Last edited by Ghost on Fri Oct 28, 2016 5:22 am, edited 2 times in total.
Ghost
Elite Upper Class Poster
 
Posts: 5749
Joined: Sun Apr 17, 2011 1:23 am

Postby odbo » Sat Nov 26, 2011 9:49 am

IntoTheWild wrote:I'm going to debate with someone who can twist and turn logic to such an extent that any topic can be turned into a racial debate? What's your racial angle on this topic going to be?

Ashkenazi Jews came from the Neanderthal. Get a bunch of mudshots of Ashkenazi Jews and compare to what scientists say Neanderthals looked like. The DNA evidence according to Dr. Svante Paabo (the superstar Anthropologist who looks like a Neanderthal Jew himself) also shows Jews have as much as 4% while other Europeans only 1% Neanderthal. As soon as this was revealed different sources around the internet started humanizing Neanderthals, changing their believed personality from highly aggressive and war-like to peaceful and loving. An interesting coincidence..

All other peoples have small link to Neanderthal but Africans who have 0%. Look into it. If true this suggests evolution, at least change over time if not origin of species, does occur, and in humanity not only in less "sacred" mammals.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yAzWNkCMt8w[/youtube]

http://www.erichufschmid.net/Neandertha ... thals.html

one Neanderthal trait, sloping forehead (in "Caucasian" people)

Image Image

IntoTheWild wrote:I'll bring up one point though, why debate with people who say transitional reptile-bird fossils don't exist, when you can go to an existing repository of fossils, and look directly at them. Those who base there evidence by saying something doesn't exist, when the physical evidence HAS been found, is not worth debating with.

How does a reptile become a bird or a fish become a reptile? If a lizard starts growing wings, that puts them at an evolutionary disadvantage. If a fish first starts getting legs, it will be a pretty lousy lizard. Won't it go extinct because of the rules of evolution? So how does evolution happen?
odbo
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2171
Joined: Thu Jan 06, 2011 1:40 pm

Postby Winston » Sat Nov 26, 2011 3:01 pm

IntoTheWild wrote:I voted for evolution.

I'm not suprised that I'm alone so far! I was kinda getting the 'vibe' from this site that despite this site being supposedly 'free thinking' it's attracting mostly 'conservative' religious types. Hence the emphasis on marrying a good conservative wife from overseas where 'traditional values' still prevail. Wow even Winston belongs in that camp.

Me, well, I couldn't be any MORE different from most guys here. I love foreign women, but the thought of having a 'traditional' life with a 'traditional' wife makes me cringe!

I'm as anti-feminist as you guys, but I'm not suprised that an anti-feminist site attracts a lot of conservative type guys. It just goes with the territory I guess. I'm probably one of the few very non-conservative, non-traditional anti-feminists out there.

I won't even bother debating evolution in such an environment!!! I have no need to 'convert' people to evolution because I don't have a belief that I will go to 'heaven' and be rewarded for that ;) So go on your merry way ;) I'll mind my own business.

I think this is mostly an American site. I've been down south and seen how 'bible thumpin' it is. I just read that 40 Percent Of Americans Still Believe In Creationism.

:roll:


Wait, you are badly misinformed here. Most of the guys here are nonreligious. Only a few are religious. I'm not religious either, or conservative. See here: http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/Articles.htm

And I wrote a lot of posts against marriage too. See this long essay:
http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/view ... hp?t=10855

In fact, I'm polyamorous. Everyone here knows that.

Why do you believe in evolution?

How do you explain no transitional fossils, like there should be? Even Darwin said that if there were no transitional fossils, then his theory would be false. There hasn't been any. Do you honestly believe that reptiles turned into birds overnight? lol

How come we have two less chromosomes than primates do? How did four chromosomes merge into two? It seems that they were artificially welded together.

How did intelligence arise in man so suddenly? That is not natural.

Why aren't our bodies suited for the wild? Shouldn't they have evolved to be?
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23609
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

HUMAN DEVOLUTION: A VEDIC ALTERNATIVE TO DARWIN'S THEORY

Postby Mr S » Mon Dec 19, 2011 3:53 pm

Here's A Vedic Alternative to Darwin's Theory, Human Devolution by Michael Cremo:
http://www.amazon.com/Human-Devolution- ... 583&sr=1-5

http://www.humandevolution.com/

Image

New Evidence Challenges Darwin’s Theory
Best-selling Author Further Defies Evolutionists


San Diego, CA – Human Devolution: A Vedic Alternative to Darwin’s Theory (Torchlight Publishing,
September 2003), the highly anticipated sequel to the controversial bestseller Forbidden Archeology, continues the literary drama with the same astute attention to detail and ground breaking revelations as its predecessor.

Forbidden Archeology documented a massive amount of evidence showing that humans have existed on earth for hundreds of millions of years. Such anomalous evidence, contradicting Darwinian evolution, catalyzed a global inquiry, "If we did not evolve from apes, then where did we come from?" Human Devolution is author Michael A. Cremo's definitive answer to this question.

"We did not evolve up from matter; instead we devolved, or came down, from the realm of pure consciousness, spirit," says Cremo. He bases his response on modern science and the world's great wisdom traditions, including the Vedic philosophy of ancient India. Cremo proposes that before we ask the question, "Where did human beings come from? we should first contemplate, "What is a human being?" Cremo asserts that humans are a combination of matter, mind, and consciousness (or spirit).

Human Devolution contains solid scientific evidence showing how a subtle mind element and a conscious self that can exist apart from the body have been systematically eliminated from mainstream science by a process of knowledge filtration. "Any time knowledge filtration takes place you can expect a great deal of resistance, criticism, and ridicule when it is exposed and challenged," says Cremo.

Michael Cremo is no stranger to resistance. In 1993 when Forbidden Archeology was released there was a vast array of response. From anthropologist Richard Leakey calling it "...pure humbug" to Fingerprints of the Gods author Graham Hancock referring to it as "One of the landmark intellectual achievements of the late 20th century," it has received both positive and negative international attention. In addition, in 1996 when NBC aired its special The Mysterious Origins of Man, hosted by Charlton Heston, and featured the book, establishment scientists felt so threatened by this program that they lobbied the Federal Communications Commission to censure and fine NBC for airing it (read the complete story in Forbidden Archeology's Impact).

Despite the criticism surrounding it, Forbidden Archeology is a huge success. Both it and Human Devolution present human origins in a new perspective. The two books are the culmination of eighteen years of research. The result, unlike the early creationist perspective, offers a new scientifically based take on human origins. Forbidden Archeology gave us the cover-up and nowHuman Devolution brings us the true story.
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." Marcus Aurelius, Roman Emperor and stoic philosopher, 121-180 A.D.
User avatar
Mr S
Veteran Poster
 
Posts: 2311
Joined: Sat Sep 01, 2007 10:57 am
Location: Physical Earth, 3rd Dimensional Plane

Postby Winston » Mon Dec 19, 2011 7:55 pm

billy wrote:C´mon Winston I wonder really all the time why intelligent people
many times challenge the evolution theory.

Look, why don´t you challenge the theory of einstein where nothing can be faster than
lightspeed. Because first it´s not so important for your believe sytem for integrating in to
the social systems and second it´s far too complex.

You coud have asked the lightspeed question and we would have difficulty to answer it.

But the evouliton theory is really scientifically studied for 200 years now. We have Archeopterix we have
old mixes of humanlike monkeys, we have dinosaurs. We do have so much. You can spent your whole life
with analyzing these things. But in the end your questions feel like when I tribal guy sees a computer controlled
automatic production line he would never understand the programms and algorithms which are the
basis of this.

The scientifical complexity is not like learning a language. Many thing for understanding evolution are gone
so we only can work with puzzles. The problem with challenging evolution theory is you don´t have
other explanations. Creationism is IMHO.........no comment. No offence.

So, to the transintional thing. We have transitional creatures like crocodiles. So it´s not unexplaninabele for
example that when circumstances change that crocodiles become more specialized for the water or for
the land.

But it is clear that transitional animals will not be to find often as they are only transitiona. I mean when
transitional beings are fragile. As they are not specialized they can be a easy prey for specialized creatures.
Therefore the specialization has to happen quick otherweise it would challenge the survival.

When you look at how people think when they see other "races" of human. They actually like to think they
were different races. But actually they are not. Things like skincollour is seen as racial factors but
it´s common sense nowadays then it´s minor adaptation to the strong shining of the sun.

The problem is our little brains can not simulate a development which took place 1 billion years. People even
can not accept what they see. A tribal would think a plane is a bird or something like that.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_tr ... al_fossils


Crocodiles? Dude, where is your basic history? Crocodiles have remain unchanged for millions of years. Every program I've seen on dinosaurs mentions that.

Billy, watch these videos I posted in this thread here. They contain tons of scientific arguments against Evolution. Watch them and tell me why they are wrong.

http://www.happierabroad.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=9150
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23609
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Postby cadams84 » Mon Dec 19, 2011 9:56 pm

I believe.
cadams84
Freshman Poster
 
Posts: 69
Joined: Mon May 25, 2009 10:03 am

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:16 am

This is a GREAT MUST READ article for all you guys. It contains tons of irrefutable FACTS to beat into Evolutionists' cranium. LOL

http://henrymakow.com/2013/08/Darwinism-is-an-Illuminati-Scam.html

The Illuminati have long known that if you destroy belief in God, people will cease to fear God and to obey the Ten Commandments. They then become pawns of the Illuminati, willing to serve money instead of principle, and carry out iniquities from sexual misdeeds to even murder.

In the Illuminati propaganda arsenal, the greatest tool for destroying faith in God has been Darwin's theory of evolution. I know some say "I believe in evolution and God." Nonetheless, countless people have become atheists from being taught the theory as "fact" - I was once one of them.

However, Darwinism cannot be challenged on morals alone. The public has been told evolution is "science," on a footing with physics and chemistry. Therefore Darwinism must be challenged on scientific grounds.

As author of two books on Darwin's spurious theory, I know one cannot discredit, in a few paragraphs, an idea which the Illuminati have spent millions to indoctrinate society with. But let's dent it, shall we?

GENETIC CODE DERIVED FROM CHANCE?

Darwin claimed life began eons ago from chance chemical processes. From the first living cell, all life evolved. This might have been plausible in Darwin's day, when cells were considered simple. But no longer. Even a bacterial cell requires thousands of different proteins ­- each composed of hundreds of amino acids in precise order. Francis Crick, who co-discovered DNA's structure, estimated the odds of getting just ONE protein by chance as one in 10 to the power of 260 - a number beyond imagination.

To function, cells require the genetic code, which is far more complex than Windows 8's codes. Would anyone argue the latter could derive from chance?

Further, the primordial cell must have perfected - in the span of one lifetime - the process of cellular reproduction; otherwise there never would have been a second cell. Yet, despite mathematic implausibility, and a dearth of supporting evidence, schoolchildren are still taught that life began from a chance arrangement of chemicals.

According to Darwinism, single cells eventually evolved into invertebrates (creatures without backbones like jellyfish), then successively into fish, amphibians, reptiles, and finally mammals. Darwin said this occurred from creatures adapting to environments.

The discovery of genetics threatened this claim. New organs require new genes. Just moving into new environments doesn't give you new genes.

This initially stumped Darwinists, but they eventually found a solution. Random mutations - copying mistakes in the genetic code - occur very rarely, but DO alter genetic information. So modern evolutionists said animals gained new genes by chance mutations, which made them more fit, and which they adapted to evolve into higher forms.

Dr. Lee Spetner, who taught information theory for years at Johns Hopkins University and the Weizman Institute, discredits this in his book Not by Chance: Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution. Spetner demonstrates that random mutations destroy genetic information and function - never increase it. Mutations are to the genetic code what typos are to a book. In humans, mutations cause sickle cell anemia, cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome, and thousands of other diseases. Spetner shows that even the rare "beneficial mutations" evolutionists trumpet - such as bacterial resistance to antibiotics - actually result from functional losses.

If, as evolutionists claim, bacteria evolved successively into invertebrates, then fish, amphibians, reptiles, and mammals, there must have been countless "transitional stages." Think about it. For a fish to become a land creature, turning its fins into legs would require new bones, new muscles, new nerves - and while it was adapting to life on land, a new breathing system. Since this supposedly happened from chance mutations - very rare events - innumerable creatures would have to live and die during the intermediate period.

So where's EVIDENCE for these transitionals? Not in the living world. Among bacteria, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles and mammals, there are many thousands of species, but no intermediate species between these groups. That's one reason why Carl Linnaeus, father of taxonomy (the science that classifies the living world) was a creationist. Evolutionists try to explain the missing intermediates by saying "they all became extinct" (a convenient euphemism for "we ain't got proof"). A more apt reason for their nonexistence: they never existed.

Evolutionists therefore rely on fossils of extinct creatures as their evidence for these transitional stages. Yet while fossils show variations within types, they do not validate the transitions between major animal groups Darwin's theory requires.

For example, while billions of invertebrate fossils exist, fossils illustrating their alleged evolution from simple ancestors are missing. Furthermore, the study of fossils has a storied history of error. In 1912, the announcement of "Piltdown Man" led the New York Times to exclaim in a headline: "Darwin Theory Proved True." For four decades the British Museum displayed this supposedly 500,000-year old "apeman" - until it was exposed as a hoax: an orangutan jaw and human skull had been planted together, stained to look old, with their teeth filed down.

Genuine fossils can be equally deceiving. Evolutionists called the coelacanth - a fossil fish claimed to be extinct for millions of years - a transitional form between fish and amphibians, its fins said to be "limb-like." Then people started catching live coelacanths, and they were 100 percent fish - no amphibian characteristics. Why are fossils tricky? Because, as molecular biologist Michael Denton notes in Evolution: A Theory in Crisis, 99 percent of an animal's biology resides in its soft anatomy, which is inaccessible through fossils. This disposes them to subjective interpretations.

Which brings us to our closing point. Evolution is not a science like physics or chemistry, which comprise repeatable, testable knowledge. Water boils at 100 degrees centigrade. This can be tested countless times. If I argued that water boils at 75 degrees, you could easily test and disprove my hypothesis.

But take evolutionary claims. Darwin said we lost our body hair because our apelike ancestors preferred mates with less hair. How do you disprove that? How do you disprove that "Lucy" (fossil bones found in Africa) was our ancestor? Laws of physics and chemistry can be tested in present time. Evolution, however, mostly constitutes opinions about the past, and one cannot test the past with the same authority as the present.

I'm out of time - but you're not. For more information, see my book Tornado Junkyard, or my short Case Against Darwin, or websites such as www.trueorigin.org and www.answersingenesis.org.
--

James Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power and Tornado in a Junkyard. His newest new book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, is a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for world government. It is available here on Kindle.

Related-
Darwin's theory of evolution: good science or a steaming pile of dung?
James Perloff is author of The Shadows of Power and Tornado in a Junkyard. His newest new book, Truth Is a Lonely Warrior, available in Kindle format, is a comprehensive look at the satanic drive for world government. - See more at: http://henrymakow.com/2013/07/the-hindenburg-another-false-flag.html#sthash.gLvgt1ox.dpuf
First Comment from Dan:

Perloff's right. Charles Darwin had an agenda. He didn't come up with Darwinism, he was just the messenger.

Darwinism is the cosmology of Freemasonry. See 2001: A Space Odyssey for the Masonic version of Genesis, in which Cain is the 'good guy' and Abel is the schmuck. Darwin's grandfather had attempted to pass off evolution as a science hypothesis in the 18th century. In his version, all life came from a single microbe. That never got traction, so a generation later, grandson Charles gave took another run at it. Charles was bipolar and lacked charisma, so the orator Thomas Huxley took up the lance of 'Darwinism'. A genius publicist, the press dubbed him "Darwin's Bulldog".

Darwin's famous book was originally titled On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.

The title is very important. He didn't simply propose that species change over time, but that 'fitness' is the only qualification for survival. In one stroke the human race becomes on par with animals. The highest authority in an indifferent Universe is the creature with highest kill ratio. Morality becomes what you can get away with, etc, etc.

Erasmus Darwin was initiated in the famous Time Immemorial Lodge of Cannongate Kilwinning, No. 2, of Scotland, 1758. As 3rd generation (at least) Charles Darwin qualified for the invisible secret society above exoteric Freemasonry.
http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/biography/darwin_e/darwin_e.html
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23609
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re: Thoughts on Evolution and Origin of Life

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 2:58 am

This totally destroys the "Apes to Human" Evolution theory and closes the case and ends the debate.

http://www.darwinconspiracy.com/

SUMMARY OF "APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION" THEORY

Darwinians have asserted that humans evolved from the African ape, and they have proposed the following theory as to how "ape to human evolution" is supposed to have occurred:

Ape to Human Evolution Theory In a Nutshell

Darwinians tell us that the biological differences between humans and apes can be entirely accounted for in the differences in their genes (DNA).

They have claimed for decades that the "genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical."

They insist that apes evolved into humans because of gradual changes to their genome. The biological instrument for "ape to human evolution" is changes in the genome, especially the genes.

Darwinians further theorize that each such change in the apes' genes was minor but over the course of over six million years, the accumulation of such small changes in the genes of apes resulted in "ape to human evolution."

Darwin's supporters boast that there are "genes that make us human" and that soon they will find and identify all such genes.

In summary - Darwinians claim the ape genome evolved into the human genome through changes in apes' genes and very few changes were necessary because the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

But since 2001, scientific researchers in genetics and embryology have discovered proof that virtually every detail of "ape to human evolution" is contradicted by scientific facts.

Below are some of the recent discoveries that prove "ape to human evolution" is impossible.

APE AND HUMAN CHROMOSOMES ARE NOT 98% IDENTICAL

BUT ARE TOO DIFFERENT FOR EVOLUTION TO EXPLAIN


Scientists in genetics and embryology are learning something new every day.

One of the things we now know is Darwinians were lying to us when they insisted that the genetic matter of apes and humans are 98% identical.

During the last 12 years, there has been a steady flow of scientific discoveries informing us that Chimpanzee and human chromosomes are so remarkably different that it is inconceivable for the ape genome to evolve into the human genome. For example:

In 2010, Nature published a scientific paper entitled "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content." (Nature, by the way, is the most respected peer reviewed scientific journal for evolutionary genetics.)

The paper was the product of several teams of well-respected geneticists all of whom were fervent supporters of "ape to human evolution."

Nonetheless, they found that:

* The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have at least 78 genes and Chimpanzees have only 37.

* The Y chromosomes of Chimpanzees and humans are radically different in the arrangement of their genes.

Both of these facts make it impossible for apes to have evolved into humans because there are no genetic mechanisms that would account for the vast differences between the ape and human Y chromosomes.

Below are maps of the Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes:

Image

The top map is the Chimpanzee Y chromosome and the lower map is the human Y chromosome.

"Ape to human evolution" theory asserts that the Chimpanzee Y chromosome (top one) evolved into the human Y chromosome (the lower one) and few changes were necessary.

That is obviously baloney - there is no way that could have happened.

There is no genetic mechanism that could have rearranged the genes in the Chimpanzee Y chromosome to become the human Y chromosome.

The two chromosomes are so different it is like comparing the chromosomes of humans to those of chickens.

The regions of both chromosomes are color coded to identify the gene family or DNA type as follows (MSY means male specific region of the Y chromosome):

Image

APE TO HUMAN EVOLUTION IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE

APES AND HUMANS CANNOT ADD GENES TO THEIR GENOMES


The same research paper also revealed that the human Y chromosome has at least 35 more genes than the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Below is the gene table:

Image

The human Y chromosome has twice as many genes as the Chimpanzee Y chromosome. Humans have 41 more genes.

This means that in order for the ape Y chromosome to evolve into the human Y chromosome, apes had to add 41 genes. In order for apes to add genes, they would have to have a genetic mechanism to generate new genes and insert them into their chromosomes.

But apes do not have any "gene generating system."

Nor do apes have a "gene insertion system."

This means that "ape to human evolution" theory is missing the genetic mechanisms necessary for evolution to actually take place.

This is ABSOLUTE CONTRADICTING EVIDENCE that proves "ape to human evolution" is impossible,
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23609
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Re:

Postby Winston » Tue Dec 22, 2015 3:38 am

MrPeabody wrote:I once knew a professor of biology who would go to debates and argue against evolution and he would usually win. But, he actually deeply believed in evolution. The point he was making was that most people who believe in evolution do so on faith just as the religionists believe in creation. Most of what people believe is shallow and it takes too much time to really dig into the science and figure out how it works. Another factor to keep in mind is that scientists now have a powerful new independent data source (besides fossils) to prove evolution, namely DNA studies. It's interesting that the Eastern religions don't have any conflicts with science, showing that the Eastern philosophers wisely avoided making off the cuff assertions about facts in the world that they couldn't have understood. Perhaps this is due to the Eastern awareness of knowing what one doesn't know, as opposed to the West which just makes it up as they go along. There was one assertion made however - the Buddha postulated the existence of the atom (the Kalapa) which was most likely the source of the Greek belief in the atom.


That's not true at all MrPeabody. The discovery of DNA in the early 20th Century was evidence AGAINST Darwinian Evolution, not for it. When DNA was discovered, it was shown to be a closed genome system. Mutations could not add genes or take away from them. And the DNA structure was far more elaborate and complex than the codes for Windows 8 or any super computer, so that it could NOT have come from chance or natural selection or evolution. Even the co-discoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, said that DNA could NOT have evolved from chance. Would you believe that the codes in Windows 8 could evolve from chance? Or that the parts in your smart phone could evolve from chance? Or that a tornado could blow through a junk yard and create a fully functioning Boeing 747 from chance? That's ridiculous of course, but that's what Evolutionists would have to believe.

Random mutations have NEVER been beneficial to a species or organism. All observed random mutations have been disadvantageous and resulted in damage or early death in that organism. There has NEVER been one documented case of random mutations being beneficial to an organism. NEVER. When Richard Dawkins was asked for an example of mutations adding new information to the genome, he was stumped and could not think of any.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g[/youtube]
Check out the latest posts in our blog The Happier Abroaders.

Don't forget my HA Grand Ebook and Dating Sites!

"It takes far less effort to find and move to the society that has what you want than it does to try to reconstruct an existing society to match your standards." - Harry Browne, How I Found Freedom in an Unfree World
User avatar
Winston
Site Admin
 
Posts: 23609
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:16 pm

Next

Return to General Discussions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 2 guests