Genetics

In a previous thread I summarized geneticist Jeff Tomkins findings that demonstrates human DNA is not 98% similar to chimps but more on the order of 70% (and even that is a generous estimate). Tomkins has a book out that goes into the details I sketched out here. More Than a Monkey NOTES: photo credits: Amazon.com

Jeff Tomkins was a faculty member of Clemson, was reviewer of mainstream biology journals, and ran Clemson’s Genomics Institute. Like biologist Robert Carter, he’s given up a promising career in secular academia and research to devote himself to resisting the falsehoods in evolutionary biology. I wrote about his presentation at ICC 2013: Geneticist Jeff Tomkins vs. Evolutionary biologist who got laughed off stage. His website is: http://designed-dna.org/ He also wrote a pro-ID book for creationists. which normally retails at $32, but which can be purchased at a deep discount here: The Design and Complexity of the Cell The functions within the cells of our bodies are foundational to our existence. Understanding these functions has made the environment and the processes Read More ›

Each species has large numbers of unique genes that seem to have magically arisen without any ancestor. Evolutionists are saying they essentially POOFed into existence. These genes are referred to as ORFans or orphan genes. From the Max Plank Institute: However, with the advent of sequencing of full genomes, it became clear that approximately 20–40% of the identified genes could not be associated with a gene family that was known before. Such genes were originally called ‘orphan’ genes Evolutionary Origin of Orphan Genes 20-40% of the genes discovered cannot be explained by common ancestry or common descent. So what mechanism is left to explain it? Special creation? But evolutionists can’t accept special creation, so they just pretend they’ve made a Read More ›

At the International Conference on Creationism 2013 (ICC 2013), professional geneticist Jeffrey Tomkins (along with Jerry Bergman) delivered a devastating critique of the claim that humans are 98% genetically similar to chimps. What he demonstrated was the fact that Darwinists are essentially saying “what is similar is 98% similar”, which is cherry picking. Tomkins acknowledges we are closer to chimps than daffodils, but humans are still substantially different from chimps. I posted a less technical complaint here: With no dictionary tricks, humans only 70% similar to chimps. Recall the “dictionary trick” whereby Tom Wolfe’s famous novel The Right Stuff can be shown to be almost 100% identical to a dictionary merely by aligning the words in Wolfe’s novel against identical Read More ›

Evolutionists reluctantly admit most evolution is free of selection and therefore non-Darwinian (neutral evolution). When pressed, they’ll say neutral drift is real, but they don’t like it when the dots are connected in a way that demonstrates neutral evolution refutes Darwinism, that there is a contradiction between Dawkins’ vision and neutral evolution! The way Darwinists deal with this violation of the law of non-contradiction is to pretend no contradiction exists. They’ll obfuscate and fog the issue with myriad technical terms and irrelevancies so that the illusion of non-contradiction is protected from public view. Confusion and the illusion of some higher knowledge are their friends, clarity and education of the public are their enemies. If Dawkins had been faithful to the Read More ›

How can we assert the great American novel The Right Stuff has near 100% sequence similarity with Mirriam Webster’s Dictionary? Simple, take the words in the dictionary and find identical words in the novel, and you’ll find the spelling is 100% identical in most cases! Would you then use such an illegitimate method to argue humans share a close genetic identity with fish. Apparently Darwinists are quite willing to do exactly that. Consider this recent paper: The African coelacanth genome provides insights into tetrapod evolution which concludes: Through a phylogenomic analysis, we conclude that the lungfish, and not the coelacanth, is the closest living relative of tetrapods. The paper goes on and on about how closely related we are based Read More ›