Science Refutes Creationism

The genomic similarity between humans and chimps is only 29.8% - Modern science doesn't support the theory of Evolution For decades, people are fed with information that we are genetically more than 98 percent similar to chimpanzees. This weak argument has been used to convince people of evolution. Does modern science support this idea? Let us examine. The comparison of genetic similarity is based on the so-called "protein coding genes", which are only about 1.5% of total DNA. But even if genetic equation would be 100%, we would not become apes, or apes wouldn't be humans. Human genes encoding proteins are very similar to kangaroos, mice, pigs, bats and many other animals due to the way the cell uses dna sections. Serious science has investigated mechanisms that regulate and guide the morphological features of animals, ie bone size and shape, and other factors affecting appearance. Gene sequences, even protein encoding genes, do not regulate morphology. The shape and

There really is no meaningful peer review at all https://www.sciencealert.com/a-neuroscientist-just-tricked-4-journals-into-accepting-a-fake-paper-on-midi-chlorians Excerpt: "If we ever needed a timely reminder that in the world of academic publishing not all scientific journals are created equal, we now have it. To test just how low the quality bar is for exploitative predatory journals, a prominent neuroscientist has tricked four publications into accepting a totally fake paper about midi-chlorians – the entirely fictional life forms in Star Wars that make 'the force' possible. Neuroskeptic, a working neuroscientist who anonymously blogs about science for Discover , set up the sting, submitting the nonsensical study to nine scientific journals – only to have four of them accept it. The journals approached are among those sometimes described as predatory in science circles because they exploit researchers into paying fees to have their papers published in them. But in thi

Changes in organisms are based on epigenetic mechanisms or loss of biological information Textbooks say that evolution is an inevitable natural process that has no direction. According to the theory of evolution, small random changes are naturally selected in a population for better survival fitness. Does this theory have anything to do with observed science? Absolutely not. Let's find out the most significant reasons, why the theory of evolution is a pseudoscientific theory. 1. Human genome is rapidly deteriorating. There are 203,885 disease-causing genomic mutations in the human genome at population level. The number is rapidly getting higher. About 10% of people are living with a genetic disease.  One in five 'healthy' adults may carry disease-related genetic mutations. Scientists are in a hurry to develop gene editing architectures, like CRISPR etc. Human Y-chromosome is rapidly losing genetic material. The number of SNPs is correlated with a loss of genes. For example,

Deletional bias shapes bacterial genomes - loss of information leads to robust parasites https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11763350_Mira_A_Ochman_H_Moran_NA_Deletional_bias_and_the_evolution_of_bacterial_genomes_Trends_Genet_17_589-596 Excerpt from the abstract: "Although bacteria increase their DNA content through horizontal transfer and gene duplication, their genomes remain small and, in particular, lack nonfunctional sequences. This pattern is most readily explained by a pervasive bias towards higher numbers of deletions than insertions. When selection is not strong enough to maintain them, genes are lost in large deletions or inactivated and subsequently eroded. Gene inactivation and loss are particularly apparent in obligate parasites and symbionts, in which dramatic reductions in genome size can result not from selection to lose DNA, but from decreased selection to maintain gene functionality. Here we discuss the evidence showing that deletional bias is a major force

Genes don't make us who we are Humans have fewer protein-coding genes (~19,600) than an earthworm (~20,470). This means that the genes we thought made us who we are, don't. Genes are no controllers. Genes are not your destiny. For building over one million different human proteins, our cells need epigenetic information layers that regulate a mechanism called alternative splicing. Thousands of different protein isoforms can be built based on a 'gene' (a dna section or several sections that are chosen by the RNA) without changing its sequence. The entire concept of a 'gene' should be redifined. Life is not driven by gene sequences. Genes are driven by lifestyle.   Source: http://schoolbag.info/biology/living/living.files/image350.jpg

Gene sequences don't determine traits https://www.whatisepigenetics.com/epigenetics-behind-unique-human-faces/ Excerpt: "Here’s a strange question many people probably have not given much thought to: why are our faces shaped the way they are? We know that no two faces are perfectly alike, but why exactly might one person have a long nose and another a small forehead? How is it that our earlobes are attached to our ears and not our chins? Researchers from Switzerland and France have wondered this, and published a study in Science that suggests epigenetics might be a key player. Filippo Rijli from Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research, along with his team, discovered that epigenetic mechanisms known as histone modifications are involved in regulating face morphogenesis, or the biological process that creates the shape of one’s face. Even though genes controlling facial shape are nearly identical for every person, each face is interestingly unique. When an embryo i

Epigenetics - Drinking alcohol while pregnant could have transgenerational effects https://scienmag.com/drinking-alcohol-while-pregnant-could-have-transgenerational-effects/ Excerpt: "RIVERSIDE, Calif. – Soon-to-be mothers have heard the warning – don't drink while pregnant. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has issued numerous statements about the dangers of alcohol consumption during pregnancy, as it can lead to Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders (FASD) in newborns. Despite this, many women drink during pregnancy, a choice that scientists have known for years could hurt these mothers' children. Today, there is a new reason why an expectant mother should put down that glass of wine – drinking alcohol during pregnancy will not only affect her unborn child, but may also impact brain development and lead to adverse outcomes in her future grand- and even great-grandchildren. The new study by Kelly Huffman, psychology professor at the University of California,

Genetic degradation leads to a need of creating modified embryos http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/sex-procreation-hank-greely-stanford-professor-prediction-humans-no-longer-reproduce-a7821676.html Excerpt: "Within three decades people will no longer be having sex to procreate, a professor from Stanford University has said. Hank Greely, the director of Stanford’s Law School’s Center for Law and the Biosciences, believes the reproductive process will begin with parents choosing from a range of embryos created in a lab with their DNA. Although this can already take place, Mr Greely believes it will become far cheaper to do so and couples will opt for this method to prevent diseases . The process involves taking a female skin sample to create stem cells, which is then used to create eggs.    These eggs are then fertilised with sperm cells, resulting in a selection of embryos. Screening of the embryos would highlight any potential diseases and the Stanford professor believes

Epigenetic modifications passed down through generations https://www.labroots.com/trending/cell-and-molecular-biology/6355/fat-diet-pregnancy-increases-breast-cancer-risk-future?utm_content=bufferdb386&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer Excerpt: "Researchers have learned that slight modifications to the genome - epigenetic changes - can be caused by environmental influences, and can be passed down through generations. Pursuing this line of thinking, researchers at Georgetown Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center analyzed mice over generations, finding that when pregnant females consume a diet high in fat derived from common corn oil, there is a significant increase in the risk of breast cancer for three generations of offspring. The senior author of the report, Leena Hilakivi-Clarke, PhD, a Professor of Oncology at Georgetown Lombardi suggests it’s worth pursuing this research in pregnant women. "It is believed that environmental and life