A Headache for Evolutionists? Scientists Discover ‘Unimaginable Complexity’ in DNA

DNA-genesCAMBRIDGE, England – In what appears to be a serious setback for evolutionists, a team of researchers from Cambridge University discovered that DNA and the way it is affected by modifications are much more complex than previously thought.

A group of scientists with the University of Cambridge recently published a report in the journal “Nature Structural and Molecular Biology,” in which they describe their findings on epigenetic modifications. Epigenetics is the study of how genes in organisms are switched on and off.

The researchers’ journal article, titled “Identification of methylated deoxyadenosines in vertebrates reveals diversity in DNA modifications,” explains how different modifications affect DNA. Their research resulted in the discovery of a new form of genetic modifications and also led them to the conclusion that the genome is more complex than they anticipated.

“We found it surprising that so little attention has been given to direct epigenetic modifications,” the scientists wrote. “In order to determine if there are in fact no other modifications, we used dA6m as an example and discovered that the higher eukaryotic genome is more diverse than previously thought.”

Not only is the genome more complex than previously thought, but the number of modifications that affect it is higher than predicted.

“Direct DNA modifications might be more widespread than previously thought,” the team’s journal article abstract says.

A statement from the University of Cambridge further explained the significance of the scientists’ findings but also noted that these discoveries likely only scratch the surface of epigenetic modifiers.

  • Connect with Christian News

“It’s possible that we struck lucky with this modifier,” said Dr. Magdalena Koziol, who was on the research team, “but we believe it is more likely that there are many more modifications that directly regulate our DNA. This could open up the field of epigenetics.”

Why are these findings noteworthy? Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins, a geneticist with a Ph.D. from Clemson University, says they are significant because “the language systems in the genome continue to reveal nothing but unimaginable complexity”—something he sees as a “complete contradiction to evolutionary predictions.”

“One of the problems with studying epigenetics is dealing with its overwhelming complexity,” Tomkins wrote in an article last week on the Institute for Creation Research’s website. “The genetic code comprises the ordered sequence of nucleotide letters A, C, T, and G, but the histone code has over 100 different letters (chemical tags) in its alphabet. The epigenetic code for the DNA itself was thought to be much simpler—the only major modification seemed to be whether a methyl group was attached to a cytosine (C). However, this new discovery indicates that many more DNA modifications exist in human, mouse, and other vertebrates than previously believed.”

The bottom line? The genome continues to show evidence of complexity and precise design.

“While the prevalence of this new genetic code in the DNA seems to be less common than cytosine methylations, the unexpected linguistic complexity of this epigenetic tag is anything but simple,” Tomkins wrote. “As scientific discovery advances in the field of genomics, the genome and its diversity of elaborate interlocking languages speaks of vast levels of intelligent bio-engineering, not purposeless random evolution.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Lexical Cannibal

    It’s cute how you guys think that scientists discovering something they don’t yet fully understand or which might change how they understand something else is a “problem” rather than a “Monday.”

    • Amos Moses

      Its cute how evolutionists think DNA and all its complexity……………… just happened….. like it was an accident……… and that you can just fiddle with it and make it bend to your will outside the Creators parameters and its just a “Monday”.

      • Guest

        Amos, the theory of evolution isn’t about genetic mechanisms or how they evolved, it is only about what happens when that mechanism is in place. The origins of life and how DNA came into being isn’t part of evolution at all.

        Thinking that God created a universe that spawns naturally spawns life isn’t heretical or contradicted that this God-sparked life evolved by natural mechanisms just as God intended.

        Again, thinking things evolves or they don’t has nothing to do with what God has asked us to do – we will know the answer to all such mundane questions soon enough.

        • Amos Moses

          When a believer talks about evolution we are generally talking about adaptation, which is part of the creation, and is Gods design.

          When a non-believer is talking about it, it is apart from God/Christ/Holy Spirit, The Creator of all things, and denies God had or has any part in it. For a non-believer, as Mr. Lexical Cannibal, it is to try to shame others from putting God in the mix, thinking them selves wise, they become foolish.

          • Guest

            Amos what makes us look foolish is arguing about evolution in the first place – especially inaccurately as this article does. There are theist and atheist models that support this ‘discovery’ – arguing about them is a devilish waste of time that has nothing to do with what Christians have been commanded to do.

            Epigenetics and its role in evolution is just an ‘of this world’ thing – it neither ‘proves’ faith or invalidates it.

          • The Last Trump

            WE don’t look foolish at all when arguing about evolution, Amos.
            Because WE did not evolve from anything.
            We were made in the image of “He” who designed us.
            As I know you are already well aware.
            Keep up the good fight brother!
            God bless! 🙂

          • gogo0

            evolution, such a silly thought compared to being made of dust from the ground or a rib… evolutionists sure have some ridiculous ideas!

          • The Last Trump

            I know, right?
            Life….just springing forth for no apparent reason… OUT OF NON-LIFE! With incredible complexity and obvious design!
            But it gets even better! These “magic” lovers actually believe that, in the beginning, there was nothing.
            And then…. IT EXPLODED!!??
            Hee, hee! You just can’t make this stuff up!

          • StanW

            I once heard an atheist say to fellow atheists who were standing up for the Big Bang Theory as scientific fact “If a bunch of religious people had come up with the Big Bang Theory first, you and those like you would ridicule it as nonsense.”

          • The Last Trump

            Ain’t that the truth!
            Hey, Val says hi by the way. She’s actually here right now.
            If you’d like to relay a message to her “BobRumba” is your “man”. 😉

          • StanW

            She has so many aliases that I have outted, it is hard to keep up.

            If you are here Valri… Hello.

          • BobRumba

            Strawman.

          • The Last Trump

            Sock puppet.
            🙂

          • The Last Trump

            Btw “Bob” I think I saw your two “buddies” in another article here today.
            They say there’s room for you on their cake if you’re into that sort of thing!

          • BobRumba

            Still a strawman.
            Still not a sock puppet.
            Still not leaving.

          • gogo0

            the big bang theory does not posit that there was ever ‘nothing’. youre confusing it with your magic story book, and someone did make that up.

          • Elie Challita

            Life is little more than a sequence of chemical reactions, Trumpy. It’s exhilarating and astounding to enjoy, but at the end of the day there’s little more mystery to, let’s say, blood oxygenation than there is to metal oxidization.

          • BobRumba

            “WE don’t look foolish when arguing about evolution”

            Actually, yeah, you do. Because you’re arguing something where the argument was over decades ago and you haven’t figured that out yet.

            Also, there is a far better and more practical word to use besides “evolutionist”. I use the word “scientist” instead.

          • The Last Trump

            “the argument was over decades ago”!!
            Adorable! 🙂

          • BobRumba

            What’s adorable is watching you act like you know better than all the scientists, all the public schools in the world who teach it as science, all the public libraries, and the millions of texts. That’s just too darling for words.

          • StanW

            So you are of the opinion that the science is settled and that there is no point even discussing the matter further?

          • BobRumba

            Yes.

          • StanW

            Then you are an idiot. Science is never settled, there is ALWAYS more to learn!

          • BobRumba

            That’s nice. Get an education and get lost, in whichever order you prefer.

          • StanW

            I have an education, you clearly do not.
            Why is it you are always trying to order me to go away, Valri?

          • Elie Challita

            Yes, there is always more to learn.
            However, you tend to learn very little when your entire explanation boils down to “GODDIDIT!!!!” (exclamation points mandatory, of course)

          • StanW

            OK, now that we are past your little Christian-hating tirade, do you have any point to make?

          • Elie Challita

            Yeah: get off your high horse and stop twisting the issue. Certain scientific points are settled, like the earth’s heliocentricity, plate tectonics, and the existence of evolution.
            Stop splitting hairs to pretend you have a leg to stand on.

          • StanW

            How stupid are you? NONE of those things are settled. Those are all the things we know NOW. Think of the things we KNEW were true just 50 years ago?

            Science changes, we learn more. Science is not static. It is the height of arrogance to claim that we know all about a subject and will never learn anything new.

          • Elie Challita

            The earth doesn’t orbit the sun, and tectonic plates don’t exist?

          • StanW

            I said that is what we know NOW. Do you think our understanding of those two things will be exactly the same in 50 years?

          • Elie Challita

            I’m pretty sure that, regardless of discoveries in the next 50 years, the earth will still be orbiting the sun and living organisms will still be subject to mutation and selection pressure.

          • StanW

            Pretty sure? Is that the best you can do?

          • Elie Challita

            I’m guessing sarcasm isn’t very popular in Texas?

          • Cady555

            Comparison – “There is no point” in debating whether the heliocentric theory of the solar system is true. That Planets orbit the Sun is fact, even though we have barely scratched the surface in understanding the solar system.

            We do not debate whether earthquakes and volcanoes are caused by plate movements, even though there is much to learn about Plate Tectonics.

            Evolution by means of natural selection is true. The evidence in support is overwhelming, even though there is much more to learn.

          • Cady555

            Then why, imbedded in your DNA, is there a scrap of DNA from a virus that accidentally got inserted into primate DNA? It is just a meaningless random error. Chimps and apes have the exact same oops in the exact same place in their DNA. But more distantly related mammals do not have this error.

            This makes perfect sense since humans, chimps and apes share a common ancestor, and the error must have arisen in that ancestor. There is no rational explanation if primates do not share a common ancestor.

            This is just one of millions of pieces of evidence. To replace the Theory of Evolution, one would have to come up with a different consistent theory that accounts for all of the evidence. Good luck. Note “god did it” is not a theory.

      • trevor samaroo

        Says the idiot who eats about 90% GMOs.

        • Amos Moses

          i raise my own chickens, organic, thank you very much…………….. buy my meat from local producers, not the grocery store, thank you very much…….. any other questions ……. i do admit to eating out though and i cant quite vouch for what they serve……..

          • trevor samaroo

            And I suppose those chickens and veggies are genetically identical to the ones a few hundred years ago?

            Almost everything is GM. I do hope you don’t eat bananas… because ALL have been GM to get rid of their seeds.

          • Amos Moses

            Your claim was 90% and you have no evidence it is even close to that.
            Thnx

      • gogo0

        way to completely ignore what he said.
        discovery of new science is EXCITING for scientists, NOT SCARY. the headache is from the champagne they drank to toast an incredible new discovery.

        those who work in science are not going to throw up its hands and exclaim “well i give up, must have been an invisible omnipotent deity” when they discover something new because it is their expressed GOAL to discover and learn new things. it is deists taking the easy way out, they who wish to live in ignorance claiming there is nothing to learn because they already know “god did it”.

        • Amos Moses

          “it is deists taking the easy way out, they who wish to live in ignorance claiming there is nothing to learn because they already know “god did it”.”

          “Deists” do not take “the easy way out”, they have to correct, using actual science, all the errors the a-theists make in their assumptions of the new information.

          But nice try.

          • gogo0

            deists base all their arguments on magic books, visions, or voices only they hear. it always boils down to that being their proof, and that is the ultimate easy way out. nothing needs to make sense when your eventual answer is ‘god did it, says right here in an old book he wrote’

          • Amos Moses

            “deists base all their arguments on magic books, visions, or voices”

            FYI, christians are not “deists”.

            Want to hear Gods voice, read the bible. Want to hear it audible, read it out loud.

            FYI, evolutionists believe evolution despite no evidence and “magic books” and absolutely no proof, just a good story about a picture.

            So, fail.

          • gogo0

            oops, youre right. christians are not deists, and I was using the term incorrectly. thanks for the heads-up.
            the christian/muslim/mormon/etc position on evolution is untenable. you ask for proof of evolution, while quoting passages from a book that you tout as proof of itself. its circular nonsense, and hypocritical to require objective proof when yours is self-referential.

          • Amos Moses

            “the christian/muslim/mormon/etc position on evolution is untenable. ”

            Only if you deny God/Christ. If you are going to deny that self-evident truth, i cannot take anything you say after that seriously.

          • gogo0

            that’s the point, your proof is self-referential, “self-evident”. you believe that everything requires proof -except the thing you believe that not only cannot be proved, it *shouldn’t* be proved because it requires faith! it is utter nonsense that only works by denying all logic, which is conveniently ignored by stating that god is not limited to logic.
            but anyway, once again the original topic has been discussed down and the standard ‘but the bible says X and the bible is true because the bible is the bible and the bible is true’ white flag is waving.

          • Amos Moses

            “your proof is self-referential, “self-evident”. ”

            So when the DoIndependence mentions “self-evident” truth, it means nothing. The DoI mentions it as the basis for all the rights we have, so from where do your rights come, if not that particular “self-evident” truth.

            We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,

            Your first presupposition for evolution is a denial of that truth. It is also a denial that you have any rights whatsoever unless it is by force that you take upon another.

          • Steven Thompson

            Surely the “self-evident” claim in the Declaration is that any rights any human possesses are possessed by all human beings — that, e.g. God didn’t make kings with rights that He denied peasants? That is unaltered if you attribute our origins to evolution.

          • Amos Moses

            When you attack the concept of self evident truth, you are at the same time attacking where your rights come from and that is unavoidable. If they did not come from God, then they are not unalienable, and anyone stronger than you can take them away.

            No, attacking truth is attacking ALL truth.

          • Cady555

            The evidence for evolution is extensive and crosses multiple scientific disciplines. Evolution is fact in the same way the heliocentric solar system is fact. The evidence is so overwhelming that while we continue to learn more, the basic facts are certain. There is no way we will suddenly learn that the sun orbits the earth. Likewise, evolution is certain.

            Read a reliable source of information on evolution. It is true. Also marvelous and awesome.

          • Amos Moses

            “The evidence for evolution is extensive and crosses multiple scientific disciplines.”

            Evolution is a fairy tale and is not science. It is not observable, it is not testable and it is not repeatable. It is not science, it is more pueso-science or science-fiction. There are no new species coming into being due to evolution.

            Adaptability and evolution, while related, are not the samething. Cats do not become dogs or anything but a cat nor does anything else become something it was not from the start.

          • Cady555

            Evidence has been observed. The Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection is supported by evidence. Mountains of evidence.

            And anyone who knows anything about evolution would know that nothing in evolution says “cats turn into dogs.” That is simply nonsense. It is best to actually understand a scientific theory before trashing it, else one might appear ignorant.

          • Amos Moses

            ” The Theory of Evolution by Means of Natural Selection”

            See, right there you start with a lie, you cannot even give the full title of the book. It is:
            “On the origin of species by means of natural selection or the preservation of favored races in the struggle for life”

            Favored Races….. it is a racist theory. It is a theory about Race.

            “And anyone who knows anything about evolution would know that nothing in evolution says “cats turn into dogs.” ”

            So where did all the different species come from if the process of “natural selection” does not account for it?

            But lets not even go there. Evolutionists begin with a presupposition they cannot support. It purports to be truth when the fact is, its first presupposition denies truth. How can it be taken seriously by anyone interested in the truth?

          • Steven Thompson

            If you’d actually read the book, not just the title, you would notice that Darwin says next to nothing about human evolution (he notes, in the last chapter, that “light will be shed on man and his origins” and that psychology will come to be based on evolutionary ideas). He makes no mention of human races until The Descent of Man, though in On the Origin of Species he does mention, e.g. races of cabbages.

            By the way, “racist theory” and “theory about race” are not synonyms. “Racism” is the idea that there is some racial essence shared by all and only members of some race — that, in short, in some important way, “those people are all alike and different from (and probably inferior to) us.” But Darwin explicitly noted that there is no trait, on which one could erect a claim of racial superiority or inferiority, that is shared by all members of one race and no members of other races. He emphasized the importance of variation between individuals and the existence of such variation — differences among individuals — in all groups.

            Cats and dogs evolved from a primitive carnivoran ancestor, looking more like a weasel or civet (but not really either — and indeed weasels and civets are about as far separated from each other evolutionarily as two species can be and both be carnivorans) than like a cat, dog, bear, or seal. Dogs are no more descended from cats than you are the grandchild of your cousin.

          • Amos Moses

            “If you’d actually read the book, not just the title,”

            And your evidence that i have not read it? NONE!

            “He makes no mention of human races until The Descent of Man, though in On the Origin of Species he does mention, e.g. races of cabbages.”

            Race means any race and he knew EXACTLY to what he was referring, cabbages or OTHERWISE. It is a theory abut race.

          • Cady555

            I was giving the current name commonly applied to the Theory. If I had intended to quote the title of Mr. Darwin’s book, I would have. Darwin did not use the term “race” in its 21st Century meaning. His usage is closer to the concept of “species.”

            Current species are descended from ancestors, and every living thing has a common ancestor if one goes back far enough. But the common ancestor has usually become extinct. The “crocoduck” type claims are silly.

            Analogy. The French and Spanish languages are related in that both descend from Latin. For 2000 years, in what is now France, every person spoke the same language as their parents and their children. There is not one point when Latin stopped and Old French began, or Old French stopped and modern French began. With hindsight, we call some writings “old french”, but there is not a sudden break. The language evolved with minor barely perceptible changes in each generation. Yet after 2000 years, French is clearly a different language than Latin.

            Spanish is also descended from Latin, also by a 2000 year series of gradual changes in a region geographically separate from both Italy and France. However, no sensible person says “OK, where is the Span-Fren language with modern Spanish nouns and modern French verbs, Huh Huh? No Span-Fren is proof, PROOF! that French and Spanish popped into existance in their current form and do not share a common ancestor. Checkmate.”

          • Amos Moses

            “I was giving the current name commonly applied to the Theory”

            And why was it changed? Because it is racist. And sorry to tell you, it still is despite the name change.

          • Cady555

            Darwin wrote a book 150 years ago. It was a good book, but an awful lot has happened since. DNA has been discovered and the genome mapped, for example. Hundreds of thousands of fossils have been unearthed.

            What Darwin wrote led to the Theory of Evolution. But this theory is not limited to things written by Darwin.

          • Amos Moses

            “Hundreds of thousands of fossils have been unearthed.”

            Which is only a snapshot of history, and all evolutionist do is add a story to it. It may or may not have anything to do with history or fact.

            But again, the first presupposition of most evolutionists is to deny the creation, to deny that self evident truth. They begin by denying the truth. At that point, anything they say after that, has no credibility. They begin by acknowledging a lie and it only gets worse from there.

          • Amos Moses

            “Darwin did not use the term “race” in its 21st Century meaning. His usage is closer to the concept of “species.””

            And your evidence of that……….does not exist. Race has always meant RACE.

          • Amos Moses

            “Current species are descended from ancestors, and every living thing shares a common ancestor if one goes back far enough.”

            Evidence………none. Show me any evidence of any single celled or even multi-celled animal or plant becoming anything other than what it was…..can’t…. there is none. So again, a very nice story……… in fact a FAITH based story….. and all you want to do is substitute that story for the truth.

          • Jackie Puppet

            Where are the “transitional species” fossils proving a fish grew 2 or 4 legs to walk on land, or the flying reptiles that became birds? Where did birds evolve from? Surely those answers are contained in the mountains of evidence. Or in the Smithsonian Institute, because they would never hide anything to support evolution, unlike the bones of giants, and other artifacts which don’t support the narrative.

          • Cady555

            Google transitional species. Wikipedia has an article listing several hundred of the most important with links to primary sources. Examples of transitional species are alive today. Google the lung fish and the snakehead fish.

            Yes, the answers to all of your questions are found in the evidence.

          • Jackie Puppet

            With all this “evidence”, why is evolution still a theory?

          • Cady555

            *Sigh*

            Definition – “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.”

            In science, the term theory is reserved for comprehensive explanations of facts that are supported by evidence, are widely accepted and for which there is no contradictory evidence. A scientific theory is the pinnacle. It doesn’t get any better.

            Examples of Scientific Theories, each supported by such overwhelming evidence that the fundamental aspects of the theory are unlikely to change. Scientists continue to explore these areas to gain additional knowledge.

            The Theory of Gravity
            The Germ Theory of Disease
            The Theory of Evolution
            Cell Theory
            Atomic Theory
            The Theory of Plate Tectonics
            The Heliocentric Theory of the Solar System

            That’s why evolution is called a theory.

          • supermike

            Evolution is both a fact, and a theory. It is a fact because it is known to have occurred and to be occurring, and a theory as to the timing, sequence, and mechanisms that affected its trajectory. Try an Encyclopedia some time.

          • Jackie Puppet

            Micro-evolution may be what’s occuring. I want to know how a fish can evolve to grow 4 legs, evolve into an amphibian, and eventually a dog or cat.

          • Steven Thompson

            If adaption exists, then a population, in the course of adaption, becomes something it was not. True, over periods observable by humans, this change is not spectacular: perhaps a strain of Flavobacterium acquires the ability to digest nylon, or Italian wall lizards on the island of Pod Mrcaru evolve cecal valves in their gut. They’re still bacteria or wall lizards (though they have features they didn’t start with). But then, cats and dogs alike are still carnivorans, still placental mammals, still tetrapods.

            Incidentally, new species have been observed coming into existence (e.g. the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, gave rise to a new polyploid species with showier flowers, O. gigas. But I assume you mean “new kinds,” so that, e.g. horses and donkeys can be the same “kind” even though they are different species (horses and donkeys are more different, genetically, than humans and chimpanzees).

            “Repeatability,” in science, means that the evidence can be repeatedly produced and examined by different investigators. It doesn’t mean that the exact phenomenon that left that evidence can recur: a medical examiner can’t kill the body on his table again, nor can an arson investigator burn a house down a second time, but both can reconstruct past events from present evidence — and a second expert can repeat the process and re-examine the same evidence. A test of common descent (e.g. shared pseudogenes and endogenous retroviruses in humans and other primates) can be repeatedly studied in different laboratories.

          • Amos Moses

            “If adaption exists, then a population, in the course of adaption, becomes something it was not. ”

            Then show me where any plant or animal became a completely different animal or plant.

          • Cady555

            Note the rephrasing of the issue. In evolution, populations evolve, individuals do not. But here we have a demand for evidence that individuals “became a completely different animal or plant.”

            It is difficult to refute a claim one has not taken the time to understand.

            We will not find evidence of an individual plant or animal turning into something else. We will see plants and animals producing offspring that are slightly different from the parent. If the variation impacts survival and reproduction, the variation becomes predominant in a population.

            Example – let’s say there is a population small mamnals that tend to get eaten by predators. Some are darker / lighter / browner / greyer / more solid / more mottled than average. An invasive plant has just entered the environment. Those individuals with variations that help them blend in will survive longer on average. Lets say mottled grey is the best camouflage. By the next generation, on average, the average individual will be greyer and more mottled. After 100 generations, we may have a new species. After 100,000 or 1,000,000 generations, with geographic isolation and changing environments, the population may have split and we have several species, none of which look like the original small mammal or each other. There may be dozens of other branches that went extinct. But never did an individual animal turn into a different animal.

            In summary, if offspring differ genetically from parents and if the environmental factors that impact successful reproduction (e.g. finding food, not becoming food) change, evolution must hspoen.

          • Amos Moses

            “But here we have a demand for evidence that individuals “became a completely different animal or plant.””

            No, if this “theory” is real then an individual would have to change enough to become something different at some point or your theory is debunked.

          • Cady555

            Wow.

            No. No. No. And still No.

            One really should not try to debunk a theory when one does not understand its most basic concepts.

          • Amos Moses

            The most basic concept about evolution is that it is faith based and not in any way based on science.

            Do you understand that basic concept?

          • supermike

            Why do you have an extra vertebrae; tailbone? why do we have the same number of vertebrae as Giraffes in our neck (and spine)? Why do fish and humans have the same number of vertebrae besides the tail we have lost most of. Why do we have 99% of primate DNA? Why do we have gills in the womb and go through every stage of Evolution inside the mother? Thinking people know the answer and that’s why it is a law to teach Evolution in schools. Look up the proven inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence. Just because you have one book that says it didn’t happen you sit there and say you know more than all the scientists in the world and that they’re all completely mistaken? That’s either very powerful mind control, or a staggeringly feeble mind (or both).

          • Amos Moses

            “Just because you have one book that says it didn’t happen you sit there and say you know more than all the scientists in the world and that they’re all completely mistaken? That’s either very powerful mind control, or a staggeringly feeble mind (or both).”

            Same could be said about any book about science and evolution. Your reasoning is flawed. Evolution does not comport with science….. and sadly neither does some “science”. Science is observable, evolution is not, science is testable, evolution is not.

            It is not science..

          • supermike

            Why then has the court always ruled that Evolution must be taught in schools? The same could be said only by uniformed, misguided individuals, but scientists prefer proof and reality. Do you think it was just chance that they landed probes on asteroids, mars, and flew by Pluto? Do believe humans have an extra vertebrae? Is that a conspiracy too?

          • Amos Moses

            i do not care what courts of men have ruled in this matter.

          • supermike

            Do you believe in extinction??????

          • Amos Moses

            It is not a matter of belief……. but again, most of what evolution is….is not science.

            “Do you think it was just chance that they landed probes on asteroids, mars, and flew by Pluto? Do believe humans have an extra vertebrae? Is that a conspiracy too?”

            Science is observable, evolution is not, science is testable, evolution is not.

          • supermike

            Most people understand that dinosaurs once existed, and now don’t. Do you believe they existed? Do you believe they are gone? That is called extinction, and is part of Evolution. There are a trillion species on earth, and a million times more creatures are now extinct. Creationists don’t believe in Evolution, but there can’t possibly have been a sextillion creatures created by God. There isn’t enough space alone on Earth for them, and if he created a million a second, it would take 50 million years to create a sextillion creatures. You are a fool to believe it. You are also a fool to somehow believe you know more about how we got here than all the scientists that ever existed in the last century while only reading one book.

          • Amos Moses

            So where did the first single cell animal or plant become something different? What did it become? How?

          • Cady555

            It reproduced. The offspring was genetically different than the parent. Rinse and repeat.

            No one knows yet how life began. Anyone familiar with the Theory of Evolution knows that it does not address abiogenesis.

          • Amos Moses

            So faith based…………… got it.

          • Cady555

            Yeah, right.

            Faith in mountains of incontrovertible evidence from hundreds of thousands of scientists across multiple scientific disciplines. If it brings happiness to redefine faith as “reliance on evidence”, have at it.

          • Amos Moses

            But you see, you have no evidence and you just admitted you do not.

            Quote:
            No one knows yet how life began.

            And actually, we have the testimony of the Creator of life, whether you accept His testimony or not.

            This is your downfall, you refuse to admit the truth that life was created, you cannot say it even if it is the truth, but then you profess to know a “truth” you say you cannot prove. You cannot even admit the truth in front of you is the truth.

            Thinking themselves wise, they became fools.

          • Amos Moses

            “Faith in mountains of incontrovertible evidence from hundreds of thousands of scientists across multiple scientific disciplines.”

            Millions of people believing a lie does not make it the truth, it is still a lie. Numbers do not prove your case.

          • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

            Sure are buddy, sure are.

          • supermike

            99.99% of all creatures that have existed are now extinct. Do you not believe in extinction? Either we get less and less creatures over time until there are none left, or Evolution is happening. Just ask the Pope.

          • Amos Moses

            “Either we get less and less creatures over time until there are none left, or Evolution is happening. Just ask the Pope.”

            The pope is a liar, why would i take his word?

          • supermike

            It took 150 years for the Pope admit that Darwin was right. Do you think he was paid off to lie into this huge scientific conspiracy? You didn’t answer my question about extinction. If extinction didn’t happen, there would be then thousand times as many creatures on the Earth right now. Do you believe in Extinction?????

          • Amos Moses

            “It took 150 years for the Pope admit that Darwin was right.”

            And thus the pope became a liar…………………..

          • Rosavera

            Scientists base all their initial research on a ‘given’, and then go from there to make a theory… Christians do not base their research on any ‘given’, we open ourselves to let the evidence be the proof , and it always does prove to be what the Bible already stated, what the Word of God has inspired us to write about in the Bible. You can dispute all you want, but the only thing that all scientist are doing is proving the Bible, God’s Word, the Creator is behind all that is created and we see.

          • Cady555

            This is backwards. Science follows evidence where it leads. It is religion that begins and ends with a myth.

          • Rosavera

            i can see that you don’t know Who God is… will pray that one day you will and see the truth… myth is what magic forwards and a sometimes science does also, even the best of scientists will never admit that science is finite and not based a lot of times on ‘given’… God is never based on ‘given’ for He is science, He is the one who made science, and the Bible has evidence that only now scientists are uncovering.

          • supermike

            A scientific theory can only remain a theory if all of the evidence ever looked at supports the theory perfectly. If there were any evidence that didn’t support the theory, it would not and could not remain a theory. Religion on the other hand is exactly the opposite. Religion can only remain religion if there is no scientific evidence to support it, or it would be called science.

          • Rosavera

            God created science. Religion, as you call it, i call it faith (the word faith means trust, it is not blind faith but trust in my belief), it is science that must prove, or as they try with much difficulty, that the words inspired by God in the Bible, in the Gospels is not true. The Bible gives evidence way before there was such a thing as ‘science’ that the world is round, while most scientists till not that long ago believed it was flat. Science has made strides in their knowledge and there is no one of faith that would go against science, i do believe that faith in our Lord and science brings both closer together till we come to the point of ultimate truth, our Creator.

          • Ladyvet

            Then why is it that the more we learn, the more scientists reject evolution as a valid theory because the evidence refutes the theory of evolution?

          • Cady555

            Scientists do not reject evolution. There is absolutely no evidence that contradicts evolution. If such evidence is ever found, the finder will win the Nobel Prize and will be world famous. It would be akin to someone finding evidence that the earth orbits Jupiter rather than the sun.

            But as with the heliocentric solar system, the evidence is so great that we can safely say that no such evidence will be found.

            Your statement is nonsense.

          • Ladyvet

            If that’s the case, then why are so many scientists now coming out as believing in intelligent design(ie. Creationism) vs. Evolution? Your statement is the nonsensical one.

          • Cady555

            Evidence pleaee. Provide the source of your claim.

            Note. Click bait headlines are not evidence. Nor is the Discivery Institute’s 10 year old list of 700 or so “scientists who reject evolution.” This list includes non scientists and people who were added without permission and have asked to be removed. Google “National Center for Science Education Project Steve” for a growing list of people with (a) PhDs in relevent fields who (b) affirm evolution and (c) are named Steve or some variation. The Project Steve list is about twice the size of the DiscoTute list. In other words, there are more Steves with science PhDs who affifm evolution than there are people of any characteristic on the DiscoTute list who reject evolution.

          • supermike

            Less than 1 in 1000 scientists that study the Earth, or Biology believe in Creationism. Check the Encyclopedia. While you’re there, check out the proven inverse correlation between intelligence and religiosity.

          • Stuart West

            This Fossil is 180 million years old……..How do you know?……Well because the surrounding rock strata is 180 million years…………how do you know the strata is 180 million years old?……….that’s easy, the Fossil is 180 million years old………………..hmmm

          • Governmental Deception

            Only dumba**es fall victim to the scientific believe that Science knows all and Science is God. That is what the elites want the idiots to believe Science is God and Science knows all , wake up it’s pure BS clown.

          • gogo0

            yeah thats kind of the point, kiddo.
            the only people who claim to know the answer to everything are those who worship invisible deities. science doesnt believe it knows all, science is about learning.

          • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

            mannnnnnnnnnnnnnnn your so blinded by your sinssssssssssssssss , get ready cause we all diebut only the body . If you have an once of sense you should know that wATH MAKES A PERSON IS THE SPIRIT AND THE SOUL. p.s. stop yapping your chasing your tail and argue like an old hen

        • The Last Trump

          Hey, remember when they made that incredible discovery that the universe, indeed, had a beginning? Just like the Bible described?
          But that they doubted anyway until it was proven with scientific measurement?
          Ahh yes. We Christians do love us some scientific discoveries!
          “The heavens declare the glory of God”! Psalm 19:1.

          • gogo0

            yeah the bible is clearly a divine book, asking questions no one would ever have thought to ask like ‘where did we come from?’ and providing answers no one would ever have thought to give ‘an eternal being willed it’. truly thought-provoking and one of a kind.

          • The Last Trump

            Yeah, you’re probably right.
            “Magic” sounds sooo much better!
            Not ridiculous at all.

          • gogo0

            youre still not getting it: evolution being right or wrong notwithstanding, the creation myth and other miracles are magic.
            I actually upvoted you elsewhere in this thread because you were laughing at magic and I thought you were referring to god.

          • The Last Trump

            Oh I get it alright.
            I just don’t believe in magic. I enjoy science too much.
            Obvious and unmistakable design with vast complexity, purpose and forethought just irrefutably points to a “Designer”.
            But who am I to judge?
            You go ahead and run with “magic”.

          • gogo0

            when you think of magic, don’t think of harry potter wizards and spells magic, think of unexplainable things that defy human understanding. that is what I am referring to.
            the existence and acts of any god are unexplainable, un-provable, illogical, and often incomprehensible. the goal of science is to be none of these things.

          • Rosavera

            i guess ”magic” just happens in your opinion, as opposed to calling it God’s work you call it magic. Magic is anything that is an illusion, not real, just like magicians make the Brooklyn bridge disappear (lol). You can justify all you want the ‘real’ meaning of magic but there is only one meaning… illusion .

          • Cady555

            I like how holy books are consistent in offering knowledge and morals beyond scope of the humans writing it down. Like microbes, bats and whales are mammals, slavery is wrong, women are not property, the heimlich maneuver can save lives, etc.

          • Steven Thompson

            Did Plato crib from the Bible? “An eternal Being willed it” was more or less his explanation for why humans are here (his student Aristotle denied that the Earth or humans had an origin; he thought the world and we had always been here). Quite a few cultures with no obvious ties to the Bible or the ancient Hebrews attributed human origins to a deity (admittedly, quite a few of them didn’t attribute the world itself to a deity — the ancient Greeks, for example, saw Earth and Sky as the grandparents of the gods, not their creation). Most middle eastern cosmologies, though, attributed the Earth and sky to the creative work of some god or gods.

          • gogo0

            my apologies, I was laying on the sarcasm rather thick. my implication is that it was not a unique idea at all, since the beginning of known history humanity has rationalized things it could not explain to various gods and spirits. this is not a christian-specific fault, but a conclusion that unlearned cultures naturally gravitate towards in order to explain things they do not understand.

          • Elie Challita

            Every creation myth on the planet claims that the universe has a beginning. That’s what defines them as creation myths.
            Besides, you’re unwittingly proving yourself wrong: Science has proven that THIS universe has A beginning. It has in no way proven that this is the only universe in existence, or that the beginning that we know of is THE beginning.
            Now I’m not an advocate of the multiverse or cyclical universe theory myself, but they’re at least more valid than a bearded man snapping his fingers and poofing everything into existence.

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            “Every creation myth on the planet claims that the universe has a beginning. ”

            That’s because they are all right in that regard. Are you denying secular science, Elie? Specifically: cosmic background radiation, 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, positive expansion rate of the universe, and BGV Theorem – not to mention that an actual infinite of past events cannot occur and a series formed successively cannot be actually infinite.

            All evidence that the universe had a beginning. In fact the evidence is so strong that Alexander Vilenkin, of the BGV Theorem, ruined Hawking’s birthday party with the news:

            “It is said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning” Alexander Vilenkin (Many Worlds in One [New York: Hill and Wang, 2006], p.176).

            So, the first 3 words of the Bible have been established through secular science. OK, I now see that you admitted that the universe has a beginning – sorry for the science lesson, hehe. 🙂

            “Now I’m not an advocate of the multiverse”

            The multiverse has never been observed and most cosmologists agree that it is unobservable. Isn’t believing in unobserved unobservable things what you accuse us theists of doing? 🙂

            The multiverse is also subject to the BGV Theorem and so must have a beginning. The fine-tuning of the multiverse would swamp the difficulty of same for our universe. If the multiverse is true, it just makes my God that much bigger and smarter. 🙂

            “or cyclical universe theory myself”

            Disproven by BGV (just take the spaces out):

            http://arxiv .org/pdf/1204.4658 .pdf

            “more valid than a bearded man snapping his fingers and poofing everything into existence”

            Strawman. No beard. Don’t make me break my Atheist Creed out now, Elie! 🙂 Good talking with you again, my friend.

          • Elie Challita

            Like you said WGC, the BGV theorem only shows that the observable universe has a beginning. That’s been accepted science for years, as far as I know. It says nothing as to what might exist outside of or without the universe.
            Furthermore, the BGV theorem is dependent on this universe as it exists for its frame of reference. Claiming that the BGV theorem applies outside of the frame of reference in which it has been observed is unsupported, because we literally have no idea what the laws of physics it is predicated upon would look like outside of our currently observable universe. It’s like applying Newtonian physics at the atomic level.
            And regardless of the BGV’s applicability, it does not say anything as to the necessity of a creator: It only states the necessity of a beginning. I’m sure you can grasp the difference 🙂

            The multiverse theory hasn’t been proven yet, but it doesn’t mean it’s unobservable. It’s actually the center of a pretty heated discussion as to what theoretical models could be used to prove it or observe it. And you should know better than to make the argument from complexity 🙂

            Regarding the beard: Take it up with Michaelangelo 😉

          • WorldGoneCrazy

            No, the BGV Theorem would apply to an expanding multiverse as well, Elie. All we need is a positive average expansion rate with the multiverse. Isn’t it fun talking about things that are unobserved and probably unobservable?!? You are thinking like a theist now! 🙂

            The BGV Theorem is actually independent of the types of physics involved. It is dependent on a positive average expansion rate. Kinda like what we see in our universe. 🙂

            Yes the BGV Theorem only establishes the first 3 words of the Bible – you are correct. But, it also establishes the second premise of Kalam:

            Premise 1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
            Premise 2. The universe began to exist.
            Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a Cause.

            “The multiverse theory hasn’t been proven yet, but it doesn’t mean it’s unobservable. ”

            True, although most cosmologists think it is. But, hey, I LOVE the multiverse – it’s not the god you think it is – it just makes my God that much bigger and smarter!

            “And you should know better than to make the argument from complexity”

            How so?

            “Regarding the beard: Take it up with Michaelangelo”

            It was a depiction – obviously it would be difficile to draw a timeless, spaceless, non-material Being. Actually, that would be tres facile! 🙂

      • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

        Hahaha divine wisdom 😉

    • The Last Trump

      It’s even cuter watching you believers in magic avoid even trying to explain how vastly complex coded programing language designed itself!
      And wisely so. You already look foolish enough, don’t you?

      • Amos Moses

        From MIT Technology Review –
        tripple dub (dot) technologyreview (dot) com/s/546246/pope-francis-said-to-bless-human-animal-chimeras/

        Spanish scientist working at the Salk Institute in California told Scientific American that Pope Francis personally blessed his cutting-edge research to mix human cells into animal bodies.

        Juan Carlos Izpisua Belmonte, a prominent stem-cell biologist, is engaged in efforts to grow human tissue inside of farm animals such as pigs, sheep, and cows. This type of research is sensitive because scientists have to inject human stem cells into early-stage animal embryos, then try to grow the mixtures inside surrogate animals.

        This can only end well…………..Not!
        But it is just a “Monday”……………………

      • acontraryview

        Isn’t it possible that God utilized evolution? You don’t actually believe that everything on the planet was created in six 24-hour periods, do you?

        • The Last Trump

          Wish I knew. But I don’t. So I won’t speculate.
          But isn’t it possible that it WAS!?
          You know, with Him being GOD and all.

          • acontraryview

            “But isn’t it possible that it WAS!?”

            Anything is possible, but fossil evidence doesn’t support it.

          • tsoonl

            The fossil record has nothing to do with the six days of creation. The fossil record was from the great flood many years after creation fell due to Adam and Eve’s transgression. You do know that it takes special circumstances for animal carcasses to be preserved, don’t you? Vultures and other carrion eaters, and natural decay would have ensured the usual “day-to-day” dead critters do not get preserved.

          • acontraryview

            “The fossil record was from the great flood many years after creation fell due to Adam and Eve’s transgression.”

            Really? So what happened to the fossils of the animals that died prior to the great flood?

            “You do know that it takes special circumstances for animal carcasses to be preserved, don’t you? ”

            They aren’t “special” – they are “specific”.

            “Vultures and other carrion eaters, and natural decay would have ensured the usual “day-to-day” dead critters do not get preserved.”

            Vultures and other carrion eaters consume bones?

            “natural decay would have ensured the usual “day-to-day” dead critters do not get preserved.”

            What are “day-to-day” critters and why would their bones not be preserved while none “day-to-day” critters would be preserved? Does preservation depend on what type of “critter” is involved?

          • Cady555

            We have seen floods. Compare the fossil record to floods. In a flood, everything is jumbled with all different animals mixed throughout, although larger and heavier objects tend to sink lower. There are no layers. Now look at the geology of the earth. We have layer after layer revealing different conditions, such as layer left by an arid desert on top of a layer left by an ocean. Now look at the arrangement of organisms in those layers. Only the smallest, simplest organisms are found in the oldest layers. Large mammals are only found in the most recent layer. Look at the evidence. Follow the evidence. The fossil record does not support claims of a global flood.

            Yes, the conditions necessary for fossilization are rare. That is why scientists do not expect to find every transitional species. But fossilization does happen, as evidenced by … fossils. And many fossilized bones have teeth marks left by predators who scavenged their bones after death. This is not consistent with death by flood.

    • bowie1

      Sure…they will just see it as just another challenge…but there will come a day when they will acknowledge their Creator, who is behind this complexity.

  • Guest

    Increased complexity because of epigenetic tagging is a driving force in genetic diversity and indicates how populations can change markedly before an actual gene variation change populates.

    This is a thumbs up for evolution, not the reverse.

    • The Last Trump

      And there you have it folks.
      “Guest” has figured out what the scientists could not!
      Anybody else still not quite convinced?…

      • Guest

        Why do you think ‘scientists’ haven’t figured this out? Knowledge of epigenetic tagging changing the function of a gene is old news, the only thing new is the discovery of how complex this is, and that even tagging what used to be considered ‘junk’ DNA affects the resultant organism.

        Again, epigenetic tagging is a non-mutagenic way to alter how an organism develops. And once a population changes just enough that they no long breed with the originally configured members, then diversification heads off right down the path Darwin hypothesized.

        That’s what hilarious about this article – they try and spin there being more epigenetic tagging than realized has challenging evolution when it actually does the exact opposite – the more ways that organisms can pass changes down to offspring the more ways there is for evolutionary selection to occur.

        • The Last Trump

          The undeniable truth simply is that life, in all of it’s proven complexity and obvious design, did not spontaneously arise from non-life.
          Regardless of any mutation or “evolution” that may occur thereafter.
          Which only happens, once again, because of, & according to, the design.
          Thanks to the Designer.
          Which you would obviously agree with, as your profile account states that you are “Standing For GOD’S Commandment’s in the Serpent’s Lair,” as you put it.

          • Guest

            When have I said otherwise? Of course the universe spawns life, just as God designed it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t happen by the natural processes of that design. Again, the evolution in no way goes against the idea that it all is happening by design.

  • The Last Trump

    Creation itself testifies of our Creator. Clear and unmistakable design points to the Designer. Just the discoveries in a strand of DNA should have ended all debate a long time ago: “DNA is an information code. The overwhelming conclusion is that information does not and cannot arise spontaneously by mechanistic processes. Intelligence is a necessity in the origin of any informational code, including the genetic code, no matter how much time is given.” (Lane Lester, Ph.D. Genetics, The Natural Limits to Biological Change, 1989.) And surprise, surprise, the incredible degree of this complexity of design just continues to baffle the evolutionary believers in “magic”.

    “The bottom line? The genome continues to show evidence of complexity and precise design.”
    Deal with it, blind ones.

    • afchief

      Sooooo true!!!

    • Mirabela Gabriela

      The article above states that that scientific journal reveals that the research indicates that MANY MORE DNA modifications exist and that the discovery ALSO led them to the conclusion that the genome is more complex than they anticipated.

      The truth is that aside from knowing the already established epigenic mark 5-methylcytosine (m5dC), they now also detected the new marker called: N6-methyldeoxyadenosine (m6dA).

      That is ONE more marker, not MANY MORE …..
      But even if there are many more markers yet to be discovered, it does not form a problem to scientists in thinking that evolution therefore is not at the basis of it all.
      This is NOT proof of intelligent design, just of diversity existing in the genomes..

      Here is what the research actually states:
      “A well established epigenic mark is 5-methylcytosine (m5dC).
      Here, we report the detection of N6-methyldeoxyadenosine (m6dA) in vertebrate DNA, specifically in Xenopus laevis (type of frog) but also in other species including mouse and human.
      Our methylome analysis reveals that m6dA is widely distributed across the eukaryotic genome and is present in different cell types but is commonly depleted from gene exons. Thus, direct DNA modifications might be more widespread (note: not more complex) than previously thought.

  • Cady555

    Scientists don’t have a problem with new information. I challenge anyone to find one scientist not making money off of “intelligent design” who is in any way disconcerted by more knowledge.

    Compare it to the news about Planet Nine. This is startling new information that, if confirmed, would change much of what we understand about the solar system. Yet not one single scientist has jumped up and declared the earth is flat and stars are lights in a dome covering the earth. Not one scientist has concluded that Neptune does not orbit the sun. Not one scientist has declared “See. I told you. Apollo really does pull the sun through the sky with a flying chariot.”

    New information builds on and advances existing knowledge. 150 years of evidence supporting evolution across multiple scientific disciplines does not evaporate with new information. That evidence is only strengthened by this advance.

  • acontraryview

    “A Headache for Evolutionists?”

    Actually, just the opposite. The complexities of genetics and epigenetics supports evolution. Helps explain the ridiculous argument of: “Well if man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?”

  • Steven Thompson

    Is complexity not a problem for creation? Human designers make things complex because they either don’t know how to make a simpler thing that does the same job, or because it is simply physically impossible for a simpler thing to do the same job (or a bit of both). Complexity is a mark of finite power and knowledge dealing with constraints; a omniscient, omnipotent Creator would have no need of complexity; He could bestow sapience, motility, the ability to manipulate its environment, and the ability to reproduce on a rock or a mud puddle.

    I am not quite clear why evolution is supposed to imply that genetics is simple. Kolmogorov information theory implies that random changes to a signal tend to increase complexity, and natural selection just tends to weed out less effective variants, not more complex ones.

  • chrisc62

    In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent). These two sat together and thought, and whatever they thought came into being. They thought Earth, and there it was. They thought mountains, and so there were. They thought trees, and sky, and animals etc, and each came into being. But none of these things could praise them, so they formed more advanced beings of clay. But these beings fell apart when they got wet, so they made beings out of wood, but they proved unsatisfactory and caused trouble on the earth. The gods sent a great flood to wipe out these beings, so that they could start over. With the help of Mountain Lion, Coyote, Parrot, and Crow they fashioned four new beings. These four beings performed well and are the ancestors of the Quiché In the beginning was only Tepeu and Gucumatz (Feathered Serpent).
    Yes indeed, the above research would seem to prove this without doubt.

    • Cady555

      Scientists have discovered the fossil of a feathered dinosaur, proving the feathered serpent exists. Thus, this creation story is fact and cannot be questioned. We must teach this myth in schools as science.

      Right?

  • Scott Campbell

    Regardless of the evidence… people will still believe what they choose to believe. Interesting nevertheless.

  • Elie Challita

    Yeah, and our ancestors used to think that lightning was so powerful and complex that it had to be the result of a god’s activity.
    It’s funny how God keeps retreating further and further to juuuuust behind our current grasp of science.

    • Amos Moses

      It is a result of Gods activity, it can be no other as that is how He made all things.

      Science will not reveal God, it has no possibility to do so unless God wills it, it will only confirm His creation for the most part.

      FYI, God invented science. He does not have to retreat, we have no ability to attain anything from Him He does not choose to reveal.

      • Elie Challita

        That’s an incredibly facile claim, isn’t it?
        “God created everything, so everything that happens is thanks to god. Even the logic you use is due to him, so you can’t use logic to disprove him”
        That’s the theological equivalent of touching someone in a game of tag and yelling “no tag backs!”

        • Amos Moses

          No, God is sovereign over all, not one thing happens that He did not deem to happen. Our birth, our salvation, our death and anything else you can name. If He was not sovereign then He would not be God.

          There is not even one molecule He does not know the place of at any given moment.

          Even you.

          • Elie Challita

            Like I said: no tag backs.

  • Beth Smith

    Accepting evolution as the fact that it is, does not mean that you cannot believe in a higher power, or God. I’d suggest the book ‘Evolution and Belief’ by Cambridge Professor Rob Asher. Everybody must be open-minded but to deny evolution (by any mechanism) is ludicrous and arguments against it uneducated nonsense. We have an extensive fossil record clearly showing the transitioning of species, all of which is moreorless now backed up by molecular data. We also do witness evolution taking place on our lifetime, there are too many laboratory experiments to even mention. New discoveries in science are exciting and this by no means is a headache for evolutionists, the only headache-sufferer will be the poor PhD candidate or postdoc who now has to publish all this stuff and deal with ridiculous articles with incredulously ignorant comments.

  • jmichael39

    what’s the big deal? As tends to happen in science, data continues to be collected and scientists analyze it and opine as to it’s meaning. Big whoop. Add it to the other data and let these scientists express their opinions based upon their best scientific analysis. The rest of us can agree or disagree. Again, big whoop.

  • Governmental Deception

    Good, that bad thing is they will use humans to figure it out. So all those unborn babies etc don’t think the X files don’t exist these scientist are nut jobs. Willing to go to any extent to see if their creations work. Don’t think for a minute as time goes on we see what looks like aliens because they are messing with issues they should never be touching.

  • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    And nooooooooooooooooooooooo we dont come from a rock ( with an expired date on it) 2 304 000 / june 12 lol

  • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

    The bible is scientificaly 100% accurate hystoricaly, propheticaly but for most its easier in a goooooooo soup zillions of years and do as thou wilt on a planet that belongs to God like a car belongs to his owner for the simple minded 😉

    • Cady555

      “scientificaly 100% accurate historicaly”

      What ever does that mean?

      And unless bats are birds, Jesus was born twice 8 years apart, and Jesus was crucified both on Passover and tbe day before Passover, the Bible is not 100% accurate.

      • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

        get right with God , read the book , but noooo thats to hard mm ? Just by your ignorant comments you dont wanna know .

        • Cady555

          I have read the bible. All of it, including those parts rarely nentioned on Sunday mornings.

          • Patrick Adrien Varencaus

            i dont threat anybody.. You reason like a car (if it could talk) rant that he dosent like the way its made. Well you can , talk to God and dare tell Him to reveal you the Truth and Himself to you. Cause no man will convict you that ALL human needs The Saviour.No point discussing seems you made up your mind, But just the fact that your on this page seeking , i m here getting update on REAL CREDIBLE news

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    No, evolutionist don’t believe that life came from nothing. It is possible that God used the certain amino acids present to start the whole process. “Let the earth bring forth” is clearly God giving the earth permission to bring forth after IT’S kind; thus when the earth changes, so do the species.

  • disqus_SUijHfDO8w

    PS. Scientist can only use something that is testable. Since scripture is clear that anyone who looks upon the face of God will die. This means that God himself cannot be proven directly because if a scientist saw him, he would drop dead. Design is clearly seen though, and this can have attributes to a creator. To say evolution is nonsense though, is a statement of nonsense in and of itself.

  • Marian Kluczny

    ich ernähre meine stemcells mit der Forschung von Christian Drapeau – dadurch profitiere ich von der ständigen Reparatur meiner Zellen

  • supermike

    Oh yeah, big setback for Evolution. Let’s disregard it showing Evolution happened and how humans share 99% of the same DNA with primates, not to mention that it proved that we interbred with Neanderthals. It is a law to teach Evolution in schools for a reason. Any reasonable person knows it is a fact and after 150 years it is still wreaking havoc with Creationists. Especially after the Pope sided with Scientists.