Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Dozens of cultures have stories that talk about an highly large flood or even a worldwide flood. But what does the law of evolution have to do with a worldwide flood? Everything, if scientific evidence can show that this worldwide flood took place in the previous two to three hundred million years.

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

---

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Is there legitimately any evidence to support this idea? legitimately there is global evidence. Each continent on the globe has oceanic fossils in it. In addition to this, there are marine fossils in the highest mountain ranges in the world. At the very minimum there is evidence to support that water covered the highest peaks.

If we interpret strata(layers of earth) in someone else way other than evolutionist view, we could say that flood waters, huge mudslides and quick burials caused the formation of the strata layers. It is highly conceivable that this happened since floods have formed strata historically in incredibly brief stages of time. This is what occurred on Mt. St. Helens when water built up and resulted in flood waters forming layers of strata. These earth layers were legitimately much more small than the strata found at the Grand Canyon. But a global flood would be immensely more potent, forming earth layers that would be a great deal larger than Mt. St. Helens formed.

Evolutionary explanations have a much more difficult time explaining the strata formation with the fossils preserved inside. Their explanation is that these layers took thousands or even millions of years to form. Each fossil organism and creature must lie there until it is covered with the sedimentary rock. This would probably take as long as hundreds or thousand of years to achieve (according to evolutionary time frames). How many organisms are going to lie colse to long sufficient to fossilize, especially inspecting that large amounts of moisture and water are present...which is known to growth decay rates overall.

Some of these fossils would have had to be made quickly. In particular perfect moths and butterflies. From my insight there is plainly no scientific explanation to show how fossils have been created so slowly. A weighty flood would interpret much good and agrees with scientific observation while slow fossilization plainly contradicts the scientific facts.

Another question for the law of evolution is that many of the rock layers have critical bends in them without any sign that they broke (there are missing fractures). This could only happen if the layers of strata were soft (just as they might be in the case of a world-wide flood).

There is also the reality that there is soil missing from the rock layers all over the world. Soil should be found in each strata layer if they were formed at a slow speed. The one and only thing that properly explains this phenomena is global flood. The strata are formed from sedimentary rock, after all, which is rock created from water.

There is legitimately plentifulness of evidence that points to the fact that there was a worldwide flood, or at the very least a very large one that would have decimated creatures all colse to the world that lived on land. If this is legitimately the case, then evolution could never have happened (or the land creatures would have had to begin the evolutionary process all over again). Evidence, in this case, is completely against the law of evolution.

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Recommend : Buy Shopping Discount Best Buy Flat Screen Tvs Ralph Lauren Perfume Men Champion Portable Generator Direct Wetting Her Diapers Like a Baby

Basic law of Charles Darwin's Evolution

When most population think of evolution the first understanding that comes to mind is what in Darwin's time was known as transmutations: the idea that species convert in time and space (geographic location). Darwin did not produce this idea which had been around since the 18th century at least. Even the idea of humans being classified with the great apes was not Darwin's invention. However, in was the observations Darwin made on his trip that first convinced him transmutation must have occurred. He observed living sloths, armadillos, tapirs and anteaters in the same geographic locations as he collected fossils of extinct, similar yet distinct versions of the same creatures. He also observed the blending of one species into someone else with changing location. On his trip Darwin was struck by the way the coarse rhea was supplanted by a different, smaller variety of rhea the added south one went; this particular example of species changing with geography stood out in his mind. Why is it that two so similar yet inevitable species should be found living in adjacent regions? In Origin of Species Darwin described what he believed to be the most prominent mechanism by which transmutation occurs - natural selection. The basic concepts of natural option are.

Basic law of Charles Darwin's Evolution

Basic law of Charles Darwin's Evolution

---

Basic law of Charles Darwin's Evolution

Basic law of Charles Darwin's Evolution

- There is an potential variability within the individuals of any species.
- These variations can be inherited via sexual reproduction
- Some individuals will have variations that give them an benefit in the particular environment in which they live. Given that organisms yield more offspring than can survive, those with the most advantages are most likely to pass on these traits.

This can precisely be more accurately described as 'survival of the best fit' rather than 'survival of the fittest'.

This understanding of nature as a continuum extends to humans, meaning that humans are a part of nature. Does this leave humans no special place at all and make us 'nothing but apes'? No. Humans may be precisely a type of ape, but I believe we are also an example of the universe becoming aware and contemplating itself.

Basic law of Charles Darwin's Evolution

Tags : Rechargeable Batteries | Green Battery Chargers | Holmes HACP7B-UC 7-Inch Personal Fan

Creation Vs Evolution - the Fossil article

Creation Vs Evolution - the Fossil article

Evidence is plainly not what we have been told when it comes to Darwin's theory of evolution. In the creation vs. Evolution dispute, nothing contradicts evolution like the fossil record.

Most of us have been told that the evidence found in the fossil narrative confirms Darwin's theory. The exact opposite is true. The fossil record, in fact, is the worst endorsement for evolution in the creation vs. Evolution argument dispute.

How can this be so?

Our teachers have taught us that the fossil evidence shows the 'pathway' of evolution. The fossils that are needed to give credibility to the evolutionary theory are 'intermediate fossils'. This would be the 'in-between' fossils that show us the evolutionary path between assorted kinds of fossils. If horses had evolved from dogs, for instance, then there should be many 'dorse' fossils found in assorted parts of the earth.

Unless we can find many of these types of fossils (there should be easily millions of these) throughout the world, then there is easily no fossil evidence that evolution ever took place.

This does not seem to be good for evolutionists in the creation vs. Evolution argument.

Unfortunately for evolutionists, no intermediate fossil has ever been found. Not even one has ever been verified in the last 150 years. (Whale evolution has been used lately, but this example is rife with scientific problems). The intermediate fossils of the past are now nothing more than just fossils of extinct creatures and nothing more.

Another one of these examples has been the archaeopteryx. This was a bird with claws on its wings. Many evolutionists figured that this was an intermediate form between reptiles and birds. It was learned that this creature was discovered in a layer where birds already existed. This creature turned out to be nothing more than an extinct bird.

There are easily no intermediate fossils left that can be used as an example. None. But we are enduringly told that there is.. The evidence in the creation vs. Evolution dispute is missing for the evolutionists (although the textbooks do not admit this fact).

Even Charles Darwin admitted that unless these 'in-between fossils were found, his theory was useless. He knew one thing about evolution: no concrete evidence supported his theory, yet. (But he was very positive that it would in the near future.) There are still no fossils to show us that evolution ever occurred.

Creationists, in contrast, have continuously proclaimed that the fossil narrative should show positive kinds of creatures with huge gaps in between each kind. This is easily what the fossil narrative shows.

The fossil narrative is not amiable to those who believe in Darwin's theory of evolution. The evidence in the creation vs. Evolution argument clearly supports creationists in regard to the fossil record. Until intermediate fossils are discovered to reserve Darwin's theory, it would seem that the fossil narrative is undoubtedly in favor of creation.

---

Guitar Toilet Flush Mount Harry Potter Book Boxed Set Refurbished Nook Color

What Is The theory of Evolution?

What Is The theory of Evolution?

People have all the time wondered who we are, where we came from, and how we came to be. Scholars argue that we are the descendents of an unknown base ancestor to the ape and that we are intimately linked to them as well. Others argue that we came to be based on the teachings in the Bible. In any case the evolution law provides a good discussion which gives citizen the benefit of the doubt, but at the same time doesn't associate anyway to what is usually religiously practiced.

The law of evolution has been argued by scholars for many years. The base law is the Darwin law of Evolution which states that all life is linked and has descended from a base ancestor. This law argues the fact that todays plants and animals (including humans) have evolved over time from our primitive ancestors straight through the process known as natural selection. This process states that the useful traits of our ancestors over an extended duration of time resulted in what is known as todays plant or animal. To put it simply, we are the most up to date model of what is known as a human like the most up to date model of a car, and like a car over time it will "evolve" and become more adapted and productive to great suit its environment.

There is also the moot on either evolution is a fact or theory. Most scientists believe that evolution is authentically a law with very well supported facts, such as fossils. While others believe that evolution is a fact and can be proven anytime. Religious experts would often argue evolution to be law but at the same time scientists would argue what they believe to be law as well. Each side in turn could both be law since one is based on facts on what is and the other is based on faith. Who knows what to believe authentically when both sides gift such strong arguments? We as humans are stuck with this difficult decision on either to believe what we were raised (for the most part) to believe or to believe the facts that are brought before us.

Regardless on if it's a fact or theory, it is still a widely discussed topic on how we came to be what we are today. We must also take note that with all the facts that we have on this subject, it is still a big puzzle with many missing pieces that still need to be discovered. Without more and ultimately the rest of the pieces, the topic of evolution will never be able to reach its full potential.

Review Tassimo Coffee Machine LDM Biological Microscope

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Dozens of cultures have stories that talk about an extremely large flood or even a worldwide flood. But what does the ideas of evolution have to do with a worldwide flood? Everything, if scientific evidence can show that this worldwide flood took place in the old two to three hundred million years.

Is there for real any evidence to reserve this idea? for real there is global evidence. Each continent on the globe has oceanic fossils in it. In addition to this, there are maritime fossils in the highest mountain ranges in the world. At the very minimum there is evidence to reserve that water covered the highest peaks.

Darwins

If we explain strata(layers of earth) in other way other than evolutionist view, we could say that flood waters, huge mudslides and quick burials caused the formation of the strata layers. It is extremely conceivable that this happened since floods have formed strata historically in incredibly brief stages of time. This is what occurred on Mt. St. Helens when water built up and resulted in flood waters forming layers of strata. These earth layers were for real much more exiguous than the strata found at the Grand Canyon. But a global flood would be immensely more potent, forming earth layers that would be a great deal larger than Mt. St. Helens formed.

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Evolutionary explanations have a much more difficult time explaining the strata formation with the fossils preserved inside. Their explanation is that these layers took thousands or even millions of years to form. Each fossil organism and beast must lie there until it is covered with the sedimentary rock. This would probably take as long as hundreds or thousand of years to accomplish (according to evolutionary time frames). How many organisms are going to lie around long sufficient to fossilize, especially considering that large amounts of moisture and water are present...which is known to increase decay rates overall.

Some of these fossils would have had to be made quickly. In singular perfect moths and butterflies. From my understanding there is plainly no scientific explanation to show how fossils have been created so slowly. A gigantic flood would explain much better and agrees with scientific consideration while slow fossilization plainly contradicts the scientific facts.

Another question for the ideas of evolution is that many of the rock layers have valuable bends in them without any sign that they broke (there are missing fractures). This could only happen if the layers of strata were soft (just as they might be in the case of a world-wide flood).

There is also the reality that there is soil missing from the rock layers all over the world. Soil should be found in each strata layer if they were formed at a slow speed. The one and only thing that properly explains this phenomena is global flood. The strata are formed from sedimentary rock, after all, which is rock created from water.

There is for real plenty of evidence that points to the fact that there was a worldwide flood, or at the very least a very large one that would have decimated creatures all around the world that lived on land. If this is for real the case, then evolution could never have happened (or the land creatures would have had to begin the evolutionary process all over again). Evidence, in this case, is thoroughly against the ideas of evolution.

Darwin's law of Evolution - Evidence of a Worldwide Flood

Zoeller Sump Pumps bloom energy ipo

Fractals and Nature's Evolution As Explained by Dr Bruce Lipton

Fractals explain all natural phenomenon. Although fractal geometry was theorized at the beginning of the 20th century, it was not until the improvement of the super computer that we have been able to see the full implications of fractals. Bruce Lipton, cellular biologist, explains in this series of 8 videos from 2005 entitled, As Above, So Below, an Introduction to Fractal Evolution, that Darwin's principles of Evolution was flawed. Mutations are not mistakes or random, but intentional changes brought about by choices made at the cellular level. And, he adds, because of fractal geometry, we can see that the evolution of humanity is a fractal of the evolution of the earth.

This series of videos on fractals follows his lecture on the nature of the human cell. We can only do what cells can do, Dr. Lipton explains, because we are made of cells which are protein machines that Move.

Darwins

And, why is this leading to non-biologists? This is not a math schedule and this is not a biological treatise. This is a conference that starts from a biological question, and ends with a spiritual answer.

Fractals and Nature's Evolution As Explained by Dr Bruce Lipton

This is the rejoinder to the meaning of life. Bruce Lipton has taken a scientific principles and given a corporal explanation to A course in Miracles and given added confirmation to the Mayan Calendar which we will marry to his theory.

Fractal Evolution Part 1

Genetic determinism has taken us in the wrong direction, Dr. Lipton asserts. Our condition is determined by perceptions, not genetics. Dr. Lipton will show us how (and keep in mind fractals) a cell is able to perceive and rejoinder much as we are able to do.

Darwin's facility that genetic mutations are random was in error. And, his idea that nature selects the strongest does not hold true. Mutations normally detract from the viability of an organism. Nature eliminates the weakest mutations and doesn't really care about the strongest.

Dr. Bruce Lipton states that we desperately need a new principles of evolution. There have been 5 mass extinctions that all but wiped out life on this planet. This coming one, the 6th will occur with the largest planet citizen by far. And, we don't have much time to get ready.

Part 2

Dr. Lipton starts with a microscopic background on the cell. Each cell has a backbone and the shape is determined by the distribution of sure and negative Charges. Proteins can Move by changing the Charges. They rejoinder to signals from the environment such as vigor fields that cause constructive or destructive interference. Such signals cause the backbone to change. A specific stimulus binds to the cell membrane at a specific receptor. When the right signal is present, they work. When the wrong signal is present, they might not work or they might Move away. The skin of the cell is the brain of the cell or the mem-brane.

The skin, membrane, is two rows of molecules, mirror image to each other. -- A crystal, but movable. The outside, polar heads are water loving, and the interior, the legs are oil loving lipids. -- Much like a butter sandwich; neither water nor oil objects would really Move through. However, the membrane also has proteins that are called Imp, or integral membrane proteins. These proteins have antennae which are tuned to specific items. If we think of fractals for a moment, these proteins are able to perceive and rejoinder to changes in their environment, just as humans can perceive change and adjust to our environment.

Dr. Lipton shows us a diagram which look's just like a butter sandwich to explain the membrane above. Let's add olives to the butter in the sandwich he suggests. When pimentos are in, grape juice added to the bread will not pass through, but when the pimento is absent, the grape juice can pass straight through the open olive.... In a membrane, proteins change shape, effectively chance the olive. The way that they do this is there are two kinds of proteins, receptors and effectors. The first receives stimulation from the environment, changing the protein gears which allows the second to send the signal into the cell. There is a association between the two which changes the shape of the effector, allowing the item on the surface to pass into and straight through the cell.

Part 3

Together, the receptor and effector proteins have an awareness of the environment (perception) and transduces this perception into response.

Definition of the membrane: This is a liquid crystal, a semi-conductor (because not all things can go through) containing gates and channels.

"A computer chip is a liquid semiconductor with gates and channels...."

Oh, my, all cells are also Batteries. On the surface there is a sure potential, and on the inside there is a negative potential.

The cell membrane is a programmable chip, an organic chip, or a carbon chip. A computer has silicon chips, but they furnish the same result.

And, why does Dr. Lipton want us to think about our cell membranes as tiny computers and our cells as tiny Batteries? We have 50 trillion cells, which furnish a great quantity of information.

Part 4

A bit of data is the input-output of the cell. The cell surface, with all the antennas is the keyboard. When an estrogen hits an estrogen receptor.... Anything is out there types information into the keys.

The nucleus is just a disk. Once the information is downloaded, you can eject the disk. The 3-d image of the cell is the screen.

How many bits of data does our computer handle? notice this. The proteins that embed are about the same size as the thickness of the membrane, therefore olives can only be added over the surface. The bigger the bread, the more proteins that can be fit over the surface.... My goodness, the bigger the organism, the more awareness it can have....

Dr. Lipton points us to an report from Science and Society: Ralph Abraham wrote "Mathematical studies of fractals describe that the repetitive branching-within-branching buildings of a fractal represents the best way to get the most surface area within a three dimensional space -- a crucial asset for the human lung for instance."

This uses fractal geometry. Euclidian Geometry goes from 0 dimensions to 3 dimensions allowing for only whole numbers.

Crumbling a paper, Lipton explains, causes it to go from 2 dimensions to 2.5. If you cut it anywhere, it's not really more than 2 dimensions, but it is also is no longer relegated to 2 dimensions. You can't make Anything in nature using Euclidian geometry. Nature responds to fractal geometry. Plants are fractals. Trees are fractals. Crystals are fractals.

Part 5

In a fractal like the Mandlebrot set, either you go deeper into it or come out of it, the Mandlebrot shape/set keeps repeating.

This is how a fractal works. You start with one equation, and add some chaos. For example, on the surface of of a circle, make someone else circle half the size. Repeat. (Here comes a microscopic chaos....) On each third circle, if a coin comes up heads, make the circle a microscopic to the left of center. If the coin comes up tales, make the circle a microscopic to the right of center.

This is fractal geometry, and all things in nature is made this way. When you repeat this equation hundreds of thousands of times, you get something like the Mandlebrot Set.

Do you remember the Rosetta Stone that helped archeologists to learn the meanings of Egyptian Hieroglyphics? The lowest was Greek, a story about kings and queens. The middle was Demotic a modern version of Egyptian, and it told the same story. The top was Hieroglyphics. We made the logical leap that it also told the same story and it allowed us to learn how to read Hieroglyphics. -- As above, so below.

Now, look at biology. On the bottom, we have the cell. In the middle, we have Humans. Above, we have civilization. The principles of life at the lowest are the same as are needed at the top. Agreeing to the principle of fractal geometry, the story of the evolution of life progresses in the same way from the cell to the human to the final evolution of civilization.

We are destroying our planet because we have no plan to support the planet!

We each are a civilization of 50 trillion cells. They are able to share energy, to support each other and to take care of each other. If particular celled units have the sense to work together for the greater good of all, then how is it that so many humans have strangeness in looking this?

Eckhart Tolle would say that it's the ego.

Part 6

The images in fractals repeat themselves over time. Let us look at the history of the earth as a fractal repeating itself.

The zone where waves and particles meet is the chaos zone -- the interface where they interact. The earth is a particle. The waves are the non linear waves of the solar system. At the surface, before there was life, there was only inorganic chemistry. Inorganic items do not want to change. They will stay as they are for as long as they can.

When pigments evolved, they were able to trap vigor from the sun and use the inorganic material, to make organic chemistry. -- We are energized earth and we don't want to stay still.

Once the inorganic chemistry was added to the earth, the photons hit the earth and didn't just radiate back any longer. They were trapped in the inorganic matrix of the earth. This is where life occurs. We physically came from the planet (mother earth) and energetically came from the sun (father sun).

The egg is the earth that we came from, and the sperm simply adds the information. Phospholipids are self assembling. At first, the proteins were just rambling all over. When phospholipids started to come together, they caught proteins.

If you put bacteria in a membrane, they will form someone else organism called a euchariotic cell.

As human civilization evolves, it will have similar characteristics to the evolution of the earth. The fish were first and lived only in water. Amphibians took the water with them to the land. (This was agricultural stage of humans where we learned to irrigate. ) Reptiles are roughly like machines. Their tongues and their eyes, flick, flick, flick.... When the environment was flush and stable they did fine. This was the start of the engine age.

In the Mayan Calendar, this was the Planetary Cycle which ran from 1755 to 1999. It is a cycle of manufactures and Power, beginning with manufactures and ending with Power. Human consciousness was aimed at Power. The next cycle, beginning January 5th, 1999, is the Galactic Consciousness cycle. This duration is about Ethics. The Power train is getting its Ethics put in.

Part 7

Dinosaurs, are like lizards, but as their size increases and they need more muscles they still need only one nerve impulse. When the environment changed, they didn't have adequate awareness to cope the changes in the environment. Awareness is brain, and body is administration. As they got bigger, there was an imbalance. -- Small awareness and immense administration.

We are now in a dinosaur period. What is the fuel that is fueling the civilization today? Fossil fuel.

What was next on the earth? Birds followed the dinosaurs. Wilbur and Orvil Wright started our bird evolution. The fullest expression of this was the landing on the moon. The icon of the earth picture from the moon changed society. We became aware of the finiteness of the earth.

On earth, mammals followed birds. Mammals are nurturers, and we, the meek, took over. Reptiles are known and live for the moment. Mammals are self-conscious and live for the future.

George Bush was reptilian. The Iraq war is an example. They were not able to look 6 weeks ahead to anticipate what might happen. This was the end of the Mayan calendars' power consciousness period.

This planet is going straight through changes and those of us who are the meek, the mammals, the caretakers who are prepared to make changes and to be complicated with others will insure survival. Our time will come. We will not survive with reptilian thinking! The Galactic Consciousness Cycle of the Mayan Calendar will insure that only those who are putting Ethics and galactic consciousness ahead of power will move transmit really and comfortably.

Again, using fractals, we can look at the earth as a cell and we are perception units, proteins, in the surface of the cell. If we do it right, the cell will survive.

Using a liver cell as an example. 99% of a liver cell is the same. The nuclei is dissimilar because that is where the genes are. On the surface of the cell, are self receptors. If you take those receptors off, then you can put that cell into any other human, or into a mouse and it won't be rejected. So, the nucleus is not what signals someone else cell with identity, it is the self receptors on the surface of the cell.

Part 8

So, here's the question: If the only part of the cell that determines the personel from whom it was taken are the antennae, the self receptors, then can't we say that they are the self?

These antennas are what determine where that cell is accepted.... They read the environmental signal in a way that is unique to me.

Heart and lung donor recipients begin to express the identity of the person who was the donor. How does this happen? The self receptors verbalize the broadcast of the person who died. Some donors have come to be vegetarian. Others have come to be smokers. One donor was able to recognize the killer of the person who donated her heart to her!

We are television sets who live in our antennae. We are a broadcast.

Just as Dr. Bruce Lipton was beginning to get a hold on the idea that he was a broadcast, his cells challenged him. "If you were just a spirit, how would you know what a sunset looks like? What does love feel like?"

He had to adjust his idea. The corporal body is a gismo to sense the world. The cells take that information and translate it into something we can understand. Our antenna send the impulses into our brains which converts it into something we can understand. It is vigor which is translated.

If we eliminate our limiting beliefs, Dr. Lipton promises, we can generate Anything we want right here. Those personel receptors, blue or red or green, are a narrow frequency of the white Light, which is God. When we put all the frequencies together, we have white Light. If we take even one particular person and don't include them, we cannot have white Light which is the totality of the whole spectrum. Every human is a considerable cell in that organism.

The Mayan Calendar explains that after Ethics have replaced power in human consciousness, we will be ready for the final cycle which starts in 2012. This will be the Universal Cycle. In this duration we will be able to meet our galactic neighbors, we will see the end of man-made lack, consciousness will surpass technology and we will evolve to known co-creation of existence and experience.

Bruce Lipton asks and answers, "What do you want from here on? Skip worrying about the past and who did what to whom.... We each are a considerable part of the One."

Appendix discussion:

We are bustling communities of 50 trillion cells which came together to generate a more efficient organism.

We are also one cell among 6 billion who might come together to share information and awareness to generate one living organism called humanity. We will then be working in a coherant fashion. The synergy of awareness will be the equivalent of taking one amoeba and comparing it to a human.

The fractal is the cell and it is each human being and also humanity. We are all based on the same fundamental unit. The multicellular unit is the human who is a reiteration of a cell. We have no new functions that are not already in a cell.

Dr. Lipton concludes: When we come together to make a wholeness, then humanity will perfect the evolution of the earth. The earth will then, with a voice of unity, be able to speak with other Ones.

Fractals and Nature's Evolution As Explained by Dr Bruce Lipton

DuroMax Electric Start Generator KitchenAid Garbage Disposal Feed A Prayer to Owen Meany

Basic ideas of Charles Darwin's Evolution

When most people think of evolution the first thought that comes to mind is what in Darwin's time was known as transmutations: the idea that species convert in time and space (geographic location). Darwin did not develop this idea which had been around since the 18th century at least. Even the idea of humans being classified with the great apes was not Darwin's invention. However, in was the observations Darwin made on his voyage that first convinced him transmutation must have occurred. He observed living sloths, armadillos, tapirs and anteaters in the same geographic locations as he collected fossils of extinct, similar yet distinct versions of the same creatures. He also observed the blending of one species into other with changing location. On his voyage Darwin was struck by the way the common rhea was substituted by a different, smaller range of rhea the further south one went; this singular example of species changing with geography stood out in his mind. Why is it that two so similar yet confident species should be found living in adjacent regions? In Origin of Species Darwin described what he believed to be the most prominent mechanism by which transmutation occurs - natural selection. The basic concepts of natural choice are.

- There is an possible variability within the individuals of any species.
- These variations can be inherited via sexual reproduction
- Some individuals will have variations that give them an benefit in the singular environment in which they live. Given that organisms furnish more offspring than can survive, those with the most advantages are most likely to pass on these traits.

Darwins

This can in effect be more accurately described as 'survival of the best fit' rather than 'survival of the fittest'.

Basic ideas of Charles Darwin's Evolution

This thought of nature as a continuum extends to humans, meaning that humans are a part of nature. Does this leave humans no extra place at all and make us 'nothing but apes'? No. Humans may be in effect a type of ape, but I believe we are also an example of the universe becoming known and contemplating itself.

Basic ideas of Charles Darwin's Evolution

Lenox Butterfly Garden

Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Most of us have been taught that mutations are 'the car of evolution'. That evolution took place through millions of these mutations.

As I began studying this subject, I discovered two very entertaining facts.

Darwins

First, no scientist has ever discovered a series of mutations that have caused a turn from one kind of creature to another. Unless this can be shown, no evolution has ever taken place.

Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Secondly, mutations are bad. They never have a distinct succeed (at least not permanently). Why are they so harmful? Because mutations are a succeed of information being subtracted from the genetic code of a creature or organism.

Down's syndrome is just one human example of a mutation. These mutations are all the time harmful, deadly or, at best, neutral (no known effect).

But, some would argue, what about mutations of bacteria that allows them to survive in an antibiotic substance? Isn't that proof that mutations can be good.

Not so fast.

These mutations are still bacteria that are lacking information that the normal bacteria have. The mutation (missing information) allows the bacteria to survive but they die off much faster once they are put back into normal population of that same type of bacteria. So instead of a permanent advantage, the mutation is still harmful in the long run.

Is there a human example of this type of thing? Could a harmful mutation literally be a good thing? Well, yes. But again it is temporary.

A good example might be blindness. Is blindness ever good? It could be in distinct situations. For instance, we know (through studies) that population that are relaxed have less of a tendency to be seriously or fatally injured in an automobile accident than those that are tense.

If a blind someone was relaxed before a serious auto accident (because he could not see the accident coming), it is possible that blindness could be the intuit that the person's life was saved. So it is feasible that a serious disability could save a person's life. But no one would desire to be blind in quarterly life experiences because it may save their life in an auto accident someday.

Once the blind someone is back into quarterly society, the disadvantage of blindness becomes apparent once again.

The process of evolution would need the exact opposite of mutations. It would call for the increasing of information (positive genetic information) not a subtraction of it. This has never been observed to occur.

The two serious problems with the law that mutations have lead to evolution is that there is no scientific evidence to show that they can succeed in good effects and there is no scientific proof whatsoever to show that mutations have caused a new and improved kind of creature (the previously mentioned bacteria are still the same kind of organism). Until it can be proven that mutations can be good (permanently) and that these mutations cause new kinds of improved creatures or organisms, evolution remains impossible.

Mutations, the 'vehicle for evolution' are heading in the opposite direction that it should be... If evolution were true. It takes great faith to believe that mutations could conceivably lead to new and improved creatures. To date, science literally does not give any evidence that evolution is possible through mutations.

Mutations and Darwin's principles of Evolution Evidence

Beltronics Rx65 Blue Adjustable Showerhead Shower Water

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

A great boon for the system of evolution was an experiment named the Miller/Urey experiment. This experiment used a estimate of chemicals, together with ammonia and hydrogen. By putting electrical Charges into these chemicals it produced two of the very simplest of amino acids (these are needed to build a protein molecule).

This test gave promise to the hope that maybe this was how life was formed. This scientific experiment gained much public attention because it gave much validity to the idea that life came from non-living (inorganic) chemicals.

Darwins

That hope was dashed after awhile. Some huge problems arose:

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

One fact was that no oxygen was included in the experiment. Oxygen is needed for approximately all life forms. But this oxygen would thoroughly destroy this experiment (oxygen would cause an explosion). Oxygen, although needed for approximately all forms of life, will also eliminate the possibility of life while the 'formation of life'. I.e. The exact same ingredient that is required for life would eliminate all life in the preliminary stages.

Besides this problem, others arose as well:
1. There is no scientific evidence that the atmosphere was even close to the same type of atmosphere that was used in the experiment. It has never existed on the earth.
2. If it ever did exist, it would be deadly to virtually all forms of life on earth
3. The chemicals used in the experiment would eliminate the life forming possibilities.
This experiment has turned out to be a dead end for habitancy seeing for the evolutionary 'beginnings of life'.

It does get much worse.

Even evolutionists in general admit that the Miller/Urey experiment does nothing to bolster their theory. But many teachers, textbooks and even professors use this experiment to support the evolution theory.

So, although this experiment is not valid (to use in support for the system of evolution), the children in the Us are studying that it is a valid support for the theory. The textbooks used over our nation still use the experiment although it has been rejected by evolutionists decades ago as any support for the theory.

That would mean that our young adults and even our children are being taught 'facts' that thoroughly contradict science (Unfortunately, authentically scores of other examples like this are still in textbooks).

Yes, students are being taught Darwin's evolution system by dozens of 'facts' that have been proven wrong decades ago. Has the time come to replace this type of data in textbooks with the truth? Or should we allow these textbooks to continue together with outdated (and false) material?

Darwin's Evolution theory - The Miller-Urey Experiment Setback

heavy duty can crusher

Brain Evolution and Charles Darwin's principles

According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, some species carry on to survive and prevail in their environment, while other species tend to disappear because they are not strong enough. The selective process decides which species lives and which will become extinct, depending on their resistance.

This thought is standard by many citizen until today and they refuse to understand that Darwin was wrong.

Darwins

He was right when he discovered that the human being is an animal, but the evolution of the species doesn't occur based on the resistance of each species, as many biologists after Darwin proved to the world with their research.

Brain Evolution and Charles Darwin's principles

They accomplished that if the organism didn't have the basis to evolve until confident point, it would never go further. There is a program that allows each organism to know how to behave in its environment and how to solve its survival problems, together with how to find food and be protected from enemies. There is also an evolutionary program in each organism's cognitive mechanism.

A monkey will never be as thoughprovoking as a human being, no matter how many years it may live, because it doesn't have a allowable brain. It was not programmed to be as thoughprovoking as man. So, there is no natural selection: there are only many programs for each species. These programs define the animals' behaviour, the route of their lives and evolution. The same happens in case of human beings.

Darwin's conclusions by observing the selective process were based on the knowledge of his time. He couldn't suppose that there are some programs behind the selective process that prepares each species to resist natural selection, which means that this selection doesn't happen by chance.

When we try to understand the formation of the human brain and the appearance of the conscience, we perceive that this is a formation that took an incredibly long time. It cannot be something that could have evolved in our planet, because our planet is too young and the components of the human brain and their functionalisms are too complex.

The formation of the first brain and conscience occurred by chance at a time so distant that we cannot hypothesize it. It didn't take place on our own planet, in the same way that the formula for the formation of the first live cell didn't appear by chance in our planet because the planet's age (about 4.6 billion years old) is not enough to allow all the necessary combinations required by probability for the formation of the first live cell, since the permutations and combinations for this event would have been too many and they would take more time than the planet's age itself.

Therefore, we can stop that the human being didn't appear on Earth by chance. The human brain and the formula for the appearance of the animal life are ancient and could not have been advanced in our young planet, but all the animals, together with man, have behavioral programs in the mechanism straight through which they derive knowledge. These programs permit their excellent functionalism and survival in a hostile environment. Programs that might have being prepared by a classic brain for sure, since they could not have appeared by chance.

Thus, the human being inherits an ancient brain that can think and feel and is aware of its existence, but one has to pass straight through the same evolutionary process straight through which all animals pass in this planet, because probably, one has to be tamed like them...

Brain Evolution and Charles Darwin's principles

Bel Sti Radar Detector