Microbe to human evolution is quite interesting for a bible student like me. Though that aspect of evolution–seemingly an unbroken link of genetic mutation–is hardly convincing, its quite intentional to present my own theory on the matter.

Mainly, Evolution, that is, random mutation through natural selection as the unguided reason for the appearances of all species as having one origin–the microbes, is my main concern.

Yet, there is another alternative to this, a genetic change through a directed process. It is called Natural genetic Engineering.

Scientists are in schism regarding these matters. The more generally accepted theory is the first one yet it doesnt deny the fact that another research proves otherwise:

Natural genetic engineering is a reaction against the modern synthesis and the central dogma of molecular biology. The modern synthesis was formulated before the elucidation of the double-helix structure of DNA and the establishment of molecular biology in its current status of prominence. Given what was known at the time a simple, powerful model of genetic change through undirected mutation (loosely described as “random“) and natural selection, was seen as sufficient to explain evolution as observed in nature. With the discovery of the nature and roles of nucleic acids in genetics, this model prompted Francis Crick‘s so-called Central Dogma of Molecular Biology: “[Sequential] information cannot be transferred back from protein to either protein or nucleic acid.”[9][10]

Shapiro points out that multiple cellular systems can affect DNA in response to specific environmental stimuli. These “directed” changes stand in contrast to both the undirected mutations in the modern synthesis and (in Shapiro’s interpretation) the ban on information flowing from the environment into the genome.”

“… Shapiro concludes:

[I]t can be argued that much of genome change in evolution results from a genetic engineering process utilizing the biochemical systems for mobilizing and reorganizing DNA structures present in living cells.[1]

Within the context of the article in particular and Shapiro’s work on Natural Genetic Engineering in general, the “guiding intelligence” is to be found within the cell. (For example, in a Huffington Post essay entitled Cell Cognition and Cell Decision-Making[12] Shapiro defines cognitive actions as those that are “knowledge-based and involve decisions appropriate to acquired information,” arguing that cells meet this criteria.) However, the combination of disagreement with the Modern Synthesis and discussion of a creative intelligence has brought his work to the attention of advocates of Intelligent Design.

As you can see, there is schism between random mutation and non-random mutation advocates, meaning, it is not clearly established in what manner evolution has indeed transpired. Schism breeds uncertainties and uncertainties, a problematic mechanism. Much so, it defies any scientific theory of unbroken genetic link of evolution.

Conclusively, there is a problematic process in proving an unbroken link of genetic evolution from microbe to human. It lacks necessary knowledge to prove microbe to human evolution by the mere fact that there is schism to how did this evolutionary process materialized: by random or non-random process? Nobody knows. But researches tried to prove these processes of evolution as indeed legitimate.

Here is one:

In her 2003 book co-written with Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, Dr. Margulis notes:

Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being?

As you can see, another biologist was opposing random mutation, so again, there is schism. How much more with regards to an unbroken link of genetic evolution from microbe to human? Obviously, by these schism regarding how life and its complexities came to its present stage is now muddled as it looks like it is a problematic mechanism.

Researches say random mutation is correct. Researches say non-random mutation is correct. My theory is, both random and non-random mutations are correct and it have selective qualities that opens them up for the possibility that evolution happened through random and non-random mutations in each specific selective characteristics yet that happened after the creation process. How come? There is no proof yet of unbroken link of genetic evolution from microbes to humans. Neither, a proof that evolution is possible between kinds. Meaning, after god created man, beast, fish, birds, plants and microbes. The reality of evolution materialized forthwith. Yet, it has its specific direction. Evolution was viable on level of kinds. Birds evolved to birds. Fish to fish etc. Everyone in its own kind and never beyond limit. Never can one kind evolves to a different kind. Ape-like cannot evolve to human as birds cannot evolve above its limit as birds. That for me, is better, harmonizing science and religion as a single unit of establishing facts. Yet theoretically, all these were viable through selective random and non-random mutations both in each manner of selective activity.

It say, not all mutation are random, implying, some are non-random:

In 1952, Esther and Joshua Lederberg performed an experiment that helped to show that many mutations are random, not directed.

Notably, evolution scientists in schism, is a major factor that influence this theory. Likewise, it gives doubt to the mainstream belief of evolutionary process as the sole factor.

Of course, atheists would defend evolution through transitional fossils yet nothing of that sort is unambiguous, as there is no proof of actual transition seen. These fossils are different kinds of species distinct by themselves. It never shown actual transition, making it ambiguous as indeed transitional models.

Honestly, a researcher admitted that evolutionary history is not well understood with regards to a specific line:

“Throughout the history of life on Earth, multicellular life evolved from single cells numerous times, but explaining how this happened is one of the major evolutionary puzzles of our time. However, scientists have now completed a study of the complete DNA of one of the most important model organisms, Gonium pectorale, a simple green algae that comprises only 16 cells.

This microscopic organism is helping to fill the evolutionary gap in our understanding. The two year research project was a global collaboration between Kansas State University, Universities of Arizona and Tokyo, and Wits University. It is documented in the prestigious journal Nature Communications.

Pierre Durand, a researcher in the department of Molecular Medicine and Haematology and the Evolutionary Studies Institute at Wits University is one of the project collaborators.

“The evolution from unicellular to multicellular life was a big deal. It changed the way the planet would be forever. From worms to insects, the dinosaurs, grasses, flowering plants, hadedas and humans, you just have to look around and see the extraordinary forms of multicellular existence,” says Durand.

“It has been difficult to explain how this occurred because it was not an easy thing to have happened. So questions like ‘why did single cells live together in groups at the very beginning of multicellularity when it puts them at a fitness disadvantage?’ challenged us for a long time,” says Durand. We still don’t know most of the answers but this project has certainly filled one of the gaps in our current understanding.

There are many model systems for studying multicellularity but nothing quite like the volvocine green algae, the group to which G. pectorale belongs.

The evolutionary transition to multicellularity has occurred numerous times in all domains of life, yet the evolutionary history of this transition is not well understood. However, the volvocine green algae include a diverse variety of unicellular, colonial, and multicellular species,” says Durand.”

Clearly, nothing is well understood to prove an unbroken link of genetic mutation between organisms–microbes to humans. Even gene sequencing determining origin is a hypothesis. But let me introduce you to it:

In 2010, based on “the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life,”[29] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[1] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses that included horizontal gene transfer. While the formal test overwhelmingly favored the existence of a single LUCA, this does not imply that the LUCA was ever alone. Instead, it was one of several early microbes.[1] However, given that many other nucleotides are possible besides those that are actually used in DNA and RNA today, it is almost certain that all organisms do have a single common ancestor. This is because it is extremely unlikely that organisms which descended from separate incidents where organic molecules initially came together to form cell-like structures would be able to complete a horizontal gene transfer without garbling each other’s genes, converting them into noncoding segments. Further, many more amino acids are chemically possible than the twenty found in modern protein molecules. These lines of chemical evidence, taken into account for the formal statistical test by Theobald (2010), point to a single cell having been the LUCA in that, although other early microbes probably existed, only the LUCA’s descendents survived beyond the Paleoarchean Era.[30] With a common framework in the AT/GC rule and the standard twenty amino acids, horizontal gene transfer would have been feasible and could have been very common later on among the progeny of that single cell.

It say, the lines of chemical evidence point to a single cell which is allegedly, the universal common ancestor. Opening the citation [30] it suggests, it is a hypothesis-driven discourse which makes it unreliable. Besides the article itself claim an alternative hypotheses that includes horizontal gene transfer. It say, alternative hypotheses therefore an alternative to gene sequencing determining “existence of a universal common ancestor” making both gene sequencing process as likewise a hypotheses.
In 2010, based on “the vast array of molecular sequences now available from all domains of life,”[29] a formal test of universal common ancestry was published.[1] The formal test favored the existence of a universal common ancestor over a wide class of alternative hypotheses that included horizontal gene transfer.

To which is gene sequencing through horizontal gene transfer an alternative hypothesis to? Is it not to gene sequencing determining existence of a universal common ancestor? By that, it makes both a hypothesis.

Hypothesis is an unproven guess.

I believe gene sequencing cannot unambiguously determine transitional points of evolution or evolution history itself as far as the ape-like ancestor.

Note: sources undisclosed.



Atheists hold a natural impulse which words are derogatory to the christian faith in as much that it posed as threat to our faith by fostering doubts to the weak. One of such, is the proposition that god cannot be merciful as he sanctioned the killing of children for example, the killing in jericho, which had children included in it or the killing of Amalek including innocent children or much so, in recent times wherein he permits children to suffer such as in illness, hunger etc…

They proceeded to add an element for doubt such as asking: how come god is merciful?

It seem at face value that it holds much weight yet what does the bible tells us? Logically, they were questioning tormenting and also, violent causes of death such as through earthquakes and other natural calamities, illness and hunger such as the pervading african scenario. So on the christian perspective, how come god is merciful?

Lets begin with this:

Luke 6:36
[36]Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

As clearly stated, christians must be merciful in that state of the father’s mercy which means that this is attainable in human terms. So logically, we can be as merciful as god in that same level or degree the father has. So in terminology, mercy in this case is in human terms. Meaning how christians are merciful, is in the same degree as how god is merciful.

How is god merciful? And to whom?

In human terms, the violent killing of jericho and amalek’s little children cannot be considered merciful. Yet still, we could say, god is merciful.

To whom?

1 Kings 3:6
[6]And Solomon said, Thou hast shewed unto thy servant David my father great mercy, according as he walked before thee in truth, and in righteousness, and in uprightness of heart with thee; and thou hast kept for him this great kindness, that thou hast given him a son to sit on his throne, as it is this day.

God’s mercy is given in accordance to how we walk, specifically, to those who walk in truth and righteousness. These are the servants of god as it say:

Nehemiah 1:5
[5]And said, I beseech thee, O LORD God of heaven, the great and terrible God, that keepeth covenant and mercy for them that love him and observe his commandments:

Psalms 25:10
[10]All the paths of the LORD are mercy and truth unto such as keep his covenant and his testimonies.

2 Chronicles 6:14
[14]And said, O LORD God of Israel, there is no God like thee in the heaven, nor in the earth; which keepest covenant, and shewest mercy unto thy servants, that walk before thee with all their hearts:

Moreover, he is apparently not merciful to all bec at some points, he hates mortal sinners.

Hosea 2:4
[4]And I will not have mercy upon her children; for they be the children of whoredoms.

Psalms 5:5
[5]The foolish shall not stand in thy sight: thou hatest all workers of iniquity.

Much so, he was apparently merciless on jericho and amalek’s little children, so logically, when it said that god is merciful, to whom he is merciful is not specific on other else but to the congregation of saints. These are those who walks in truth and righteousness and follow the covenant and testimonies. These are to whom god is merciful to. It cannot be on all people so as it seems.

Deuteronomy 33:3
[3]Yea, he loved the people; all his saints are in thy hand: and they sat down at thy feet; every one shall receive of thy words.

1 Samuel 2:9
[9]He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.

Psalms 37:28
[28]For the LORD loveth judgment, and forsaketh not his saints; they are preserved for ever: but the seed of the wicked shall be cut off.

Logic dictates, that torments are not signs of mercy, yet as a form of tests, its logically, a prerequisite to salvation–a screening test to see who are worthy, therefore it cannot be considered as “merciless”.

1 Peter 3:13-14
[13]And who is he that will harm you, if ye be followers of that which is good?
[14]But and if ye suffer for righteousness’ sake, happy are ye: and be not afraid of their terror, neither be troubled;

What is merciless are the torments of people outside the congregation of saints, that suffered to their death.

2 Samuel 22:27
[27]With the pure thou wilt shew thyself pure; and with the froward thou wilt shew thyself unsavoury.

Romans 11:22
[22]Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.

That is not to whom it was said that god is merciful to, bec mercy was specific for the congregation of saints. Yet saints, too suffered violent and tormenting death. But then, the difference is, their torments are forms of test. Its not “merciless”.

1 Corinthians 10:13
[13]There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

But why do children suffer and die in the hands of god when their torments are not forms of tests as they are already children of heaven?

To this question, i believe the bible has no answer but simply to say:

Psalms 116:15
[15]Precious in the sight of the LORD is the death of his saints.

Isaiah 57:1
[1]The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come.

Without knowledge of absolute reality or at least, of the necessary part, do we judge god as merciless when children suffered and die in the hands of god having not a glimpse of the broader reality? We would only be jumping to conclusion. Without a complete or at least a broader picture of reality, we would be like a blindman touching the ear and blurted, “oh the elephant is a fan”, relative to how you call god merciless.


What is the pre-adamic race theory?

Theory, as in guess, bec in matter of biblical and scientific truth, such concept is yet unverified or uncertain. Biblically, we have no endearing truth to validate the age of Adam so in matters of biblical certainty any guarantee on the matter would only be considered as null and void.

Pre-adamic concept emanates from the theory that Adam, being the first man of the modern world, is more or less 6000 years old whereas prior, there were already humans belonging to the old world. This old world was destroyed even earlier than noah’s flood, so as these proponents argue.

How do i falsify it?

Through genetics, the development map in our human body determining how we inherits our very being from parental species even beyond to our distant ancestors–say a neanderthal parent through hybridization.

A scientific journal says:

What does it mean to have Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA?

“Several direct-to-consumer genetic testing companies report how much DNA a person has inherited from prehistoric humans, such as Neanderthals and Denisovans. This information is generally reported as a percentage that suggests how much DNA an individual has inherited from these ancestors. The percentage of Neanderthal DNA in modern humans is zero or close to zero in people from African populations, and is about 1 to 2 percent in people of European or Asian background. The percentage of Denisovan DNA is highest in the Melanesian population (4 to 6 percent), lower in other Southeast Asian and Pacific Islander populations, and very low or undetectable elsewhere in the world.

Neanderthals were very early (archaic) humans who lived in Europe and Western Asia from about 400,000 years ago until they became extinct about 40,000 years ago. Denisovans are another population of early humans who lived in Asia and were distantly related to Neanderthals. (Much less is known about the Denisovans because scientists have uncovered fewer fossils of these ancient people.) The precise way that modern humans, Neanderthals, and Denisovans are related is still under study. However, research has shown that modern humans overlapped with Neanderthal and Denisovan populations for a period, and that they had children together (interbred). As a result, many people living today have a small amount of genetic material from these distant ancestors.

Scientists have sequenced Neanderthal and Denisovan genomes from fossils discovered in Europe and Asia. This genetic information is helping researchers learn more about these early humans. Determining which areas of the genome are shared with archaic humans, and which areas are different, will also help researchers find out what differentiates modern humans from our closest extinct relatives.

In addition to the percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA, direct to-consumer testing reports may include information about a few genetic variants inherited from these ancestors that influence specific traits. Studies have suggested that certain genetic variations inherited from archaic humans may play roles in hair texture, height, sensitivity of the sense of smell, immune responses, adaptations to high altitude, and other characteristics in modern humans. These variations may also influence the risk of developing certain diseases. However, the significance of Neanderthal or Denisovan genetic variants on disease risk is still an area of active study, and most direct-to-consumer test results currently do not include them.

While knowing how much DNA a person has in common with his or her Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestors may be interesting, these data do not provide practical information about a person’s current health or chances of developing particular diseases. Having more or less DNA in common with archaic humans says nothing about how “evolved” a person is, nor does it give any indication of strength or intelligence. For now, knowing which specific genetic variants a person inherited from Neanderthal or Denisovan ancestors provides only limited information about a few physical traits.”

Source: https://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/primer/dtcgenetictesting/neanderthaldna

What does it suggests?

Some people now have a small percentage of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA meaning that, they inherited it from a distant ancestor. To have inherited it, it must have been through cross breeding between humans and hominids, therefore for it to be possible, they must have existed in that common timeline. So humans existed with neanderthals and denisovans.

Neanderthals existed 40,000 years ago, thus humans were present in those dispensation so to say that Adam lived 6000 years ago is falsified by this reality much so to say, that there was pre-adamic race bec how could an unbroken link of genetic transmission begun from approximately 40,000 years ago as apparent on modern humans–as apparent on humans who acquired neanderthal or denisovan DNA–if they were inexistent then?

Erik Trinkaus, an anthropologist at Washington University in Saint Louis and the study’s author, reported his findings in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

“There must have been something else happening bec the populations of early modern humans were expanding,” he said. “The last Neanderthal we know of lived about 40,000 years ago.”

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/11/science/11obneanderthal.html

Moreover, the journal specified:

“However, research has shown that modern humans overlapped with Neanderthal and Denisovan populations for a period, and that they had children together (interbred). As a result, many people living today have a small amount of genetic material from these distant ancestors.”


The paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote that “…facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world’s data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts.”[8]

Sure is, there is nothing wrong with theories, isnt it? Its not as what it is ordinarily used as, that is, a speculation. But then, what is a scientific theory?

“A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can be repeatedly tested, in accordance with the scientific method, using a predefined protocol of observation and experiment.[1][2] Established scientific theories have withstood rigorous scrutiny and embody scientific knowledge.[3]

Indeed, a scientific theory spells out something good. It explains natural phenomena and once its an established scientific theory then its accepted as essentially true.

Definitions from scientific organizations[edit]

“The United States National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theories as follows:

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence. Many scientific theories are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics)…One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed.[13]

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not “guesses” but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than “just a theory”. It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact.

What makes scientific theories reliable is in matters of its accuracy. It states:

The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain and its simplicity. As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be modified and ultimately rejected if it cannot be made to fit the new findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then required. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions. A case in point is Newton’s laws of motion, which can serve as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light.

With regards to evolution, its widely accepted as true, yet was its accuracy established to say, its sufficient for reliability?

Theories do not have to be perfectly accurate to be scientifically useful. For example, the predictions made by classical mechanics are known to be inaccurate in the relatistivic realm, but they are almost exactly correct at the comparatively low velocities of common human experience.[15] In chemistry, there are many acid-base theories providing highly divergent explanations of the underlying nature of acidic and basic compounds, but they are very useful for predicting their chemical behavior.[16] Like all knowledge in science, no theory can ever be completely certain, since it is possible that future experiments might conflict with the theory’s predictions.[17] However, theories supported by the scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge; for example, that all objects are subject to gravity or that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.[18]

There may be some facts about evolution such as the galapagos birds as new specie bec of cross breeding and natural selection but that is a phenomenon after the crucial days of creation. So evolution happens after creation. But nowhere could it be proven that life begun from one common ancestor. The bible dont conform with such idea.

There is an accuracy issue with regards to theories. Sometimes, a theory could be less accurate, thus it could be modified or rejected if it doesnt fit new findings, therefore should it be proper to treat each theory as a possible less accurate theory, having the possibility real as per observation? With regards to evolution, is it accurate enough to say it has sufficient ground to be considered true–or reliable?

The source confirmed:

Like all knowledge in science, no theory can ever be completely certain,

Furthermore, it states:

However, theories supported by the scientific consensus have the highest level of certainty of any scientific knowledge; for example, that all objects are subject to gravity or that life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor.[18]

For me, i have not seen yet sufficient evidence to say, human evolution is viable–much so Darwinism, primarily.
“Darwinism is a trivial idea that has been elevated to the status of the scientific theory that governs modern biology.”

Dr. Michael Egnor, Professor of Neurosurgery and Pediatrics at State University of New York, Stony Brook

Source: https://dissentfromdarwin.org

There is doubt, even in the hub of the science world itself:

“Over 500 doctoral scientists have now signed a statement publicly expressing their skepticism about the contemporary theory of Darwinian evolution.

The Scientific Dissent From Darwinism statement reads: “We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.”

“Darwinists continue to claim that no serious scientists doubt the theory and yet here are 500 scientists who are willing to make public their skepticism about the theory,” said Dr. John G. West, associate director of Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture.

“Darwin’s theory of evolution is the great white elephant of contemporary thought,” said Dr. David Berlinski, one of the original signers, a mathematician and philosopher of science with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (CSC). “It is large, almost completely useless, and the object of superstitious awe.”

“Other prominent signatories include U.S. National Academy of Sciences member Philip Skell; American Association for the Advancement of Science Fellow Lyle Jensen; evolutionary biologist and textbook author Stanley Salthe; Smithsonian Institution evolutionary biologist and a researcher at the National Institutes of Health’s National Center for Biotechnology Information Richard von Sternberg; Editor of Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum –the oldest still published biology journal in the world — Giuseppe Sermonti; and Russian Academy of Natural Sciences embryologist Lev Beloussov.”

Source: https://evolutionnews.org/2006/02/over_500_scientists_proclaim_t/

One article said:

“The list has been criticized by many organizations and publications for lacking any true experts in the relevant fields of research, primarily biology. Critics have noted that of the 105 “scientists” listed on the original 2001 petition, fewer than 20% were biologists, with few of the remainder having the necessary expertise to contribute meaningfully to a discussion of the role of natural selection in evolution.”

So as you can see, dissenters have with them biologists, though less than 20% who are scientifically inclined in discussing evolution, so its not just based on religious motivations but on scientific analysis and considerations.

Of course, a small percentage of scientists trying to put doubt on a widely accepted scientific theory would be met with objections, such as saying, this dissent is primarily faith based rather than evidence based.

Yesterday, I discussed the contention by advocates of Darwinian evolution claim that there are no legitimate scientific problems with their viewpoint. Supporters of Darwin’s theory often seek to portray those who doubt evolution as being moved by strictly religious or political motivations. The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List shows that many objections to Darwinian evolution are scientifically based. But because numerous pro-Darwin activists cannot admit this, they have developed a variety of strategies for attacking the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List.


The article first states: “Biological evolution is a scientifically settled theory. Among scientists, this means that its fundamental principle — he shared ancestry of living organisms — has overcome all scientific challenges.” This assertion promotes a standard NCSE talking point — that there are no scientific doubts about modern evolutionary theory. However, we’ve already seen that is a false claim.

These statement is from an article entitled: Answering Objections to the dissent of the Darwinism list.

You can read that from here: https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/answering_objec_2/

The scientific objection to Darwinism can be read here: https://evolutionnews.org/2015/03/information_for/

An excerpt from the link:

What Scientific Evidence Challenges Darwinian Evolution?
The signers of the Scientific Dissent from Darwinism List have many scientific reasons for being skeptical of Darwinian theory. In writing this, I do not intend to speak for any of them in particular, but the following section briefly lists some of the types of scientific data that are often cited by those challenging Darwinian evolution:

  • Genetics — Mutations Cause Harm and Do Not Build Complexity:Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by a blind, unguided process of natural selection. This undirected process has no goals. Being random, it tends to harm organisms and does not improve them or build complexity. As biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences until her death in 2011, said: “New mutations don’t create new species; they create offspring that are impaired.”1 Similarly, the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, contended that “[m]utations have a very limited ‘constructive capacity’” because “[n]o matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of evolution.”2
  • Biochemistry — Unguided and Random Processes Cannot Produce Cellular Complexity: Our cells are like miniature factories using machine technology but dwarfing the complexity and efficiency of anything produced by humans. Cells use miniature circuits, motors, feedback loops, encoded language, and even error-checking machinery to decode and repair our DNA. As Bruce Alberts, former president of the U.S. National Academy of Science, observed: “[t]he entire cell can be viewed as a factory that contains an elaborate network of interlocking assembly lines, each of which is composed of a set of large protein machines.”3 Darwinian evolution struggles to explain the origin of this type of integrated complexity. Biochemist Franklin Harold admits in a book published by Oxford University Press: “There are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”4
  • Paleontology — The Fossil Record Lacks Intermediate Fossils: The fossil record’s overall pattern is one of abrupt explosions of new biological forms, and generally lacks plausible candidates for transitional fossils, contradicting the pattern of gradual evolution predicted by Darwinian theory. This non-Darwinian pattern has been recognized by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz states: “We are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms. They appear in the fossil record as Athena did from the head of Zeus — full-blown and raring to go, in contradiction to Darwin’s depiction of evolution as resulting from the gradual accumulation of countless infinitesimally minute variations.”5 Likewise the great evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr explained that “[n]ew species usually appear in the fossil record suddenly, not connected with their ancestors by a series of intermediates.”6 Similarly, a zoology textbook observes: “Many species remain virtually unchanged for millions of years, then suddenly disappear to be replaced by a quite different, but related, form. Moreover, most major groups of animals appear abruptly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no fossils yet discovered that form a transition from their parent group.”7
  • Neo-Darwinian Evolution Has Been and Continues to Be Critiqued by Mainstream Scientists: Everyone agrees that microevolution occurs. But mainstream scientific and academic literature is saturated with skepticism about the neo-Darwinian claim that microevolution offers an adequate basis for justifying macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany wrote in the journal Theory in Biosciences that “while we already have a quite good understanding of how organisms adapt to the environment, much less is known about the mechanisms behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a process that is arguably different from adaptation. Despite Darwin’s undeniable merits, explaining how the enormous complexity and diversity of living beings on our planet originated remains one of the greatest challenges of biology.”8 A 2011 paper in Biological Theory stated, “Darwinism in its current scientific incarnation has pretty much reached the end of its rope,”9 and in 2012, the noted atheist philosopher Thomas Nagel argued in an Oxford University Press book that “the materialist neo-Darwinian conception of nature is almost certainly false.”10 Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe likewise describes himself as “a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory,”11 which he insists “cannot explain origins, or the actual presence of forms and behaviors”12 in organisms. Biologist Scott Gilbert has stated in a report in Nature that “[t]he modern synthesis is remarkably good at modeling the survival of the fittest, but not good at modeling the arrival of the fittest,” and evolutionary paleobiologist Graham Budd admits: “When the public thinks about evolution, they think about the origin of wings and the invasion of the land, . . . [b]ut these are things that evolutionary theory has told us little about.”13 Eugene Koonin writes in Trends in Genetics about the increasingly undeniable reasons to doubt core neo-Darwinian tenets, such as view that “natural selection is the main driving force of evolution,” indicating that “the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair” and “all major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.” He concludes: “Not to mince words, the modern synthesis is gone.”14 Because of such criticisms, Cornell evolutionary biologist William Provine believes the Darwinian claim that “Macroevolution was a simple extension of microevolution” is “false.”15

There are many scientific objections to Darwinian evolution, and again, this is not to say that any particular signer of the Dissent from Darwinism list makes any one of these specific arguments. Instead, I have simply indicated some of the common scientific objections to Darwinian evolution. In a subsequent post, I will address the question: “Is Darwinian Evolution ‘Just a Theory’?”

In support of the first scientific objection:

Dr. Margulis herself, however, had a serious problem with the idea that natural selection acting on mutations could create anything new. She didn’t apply it to the problem of the protein pathways in the cell, but she did recognize the lack of evidence of beneficial mutations. In her 2003 book co-written with Dorion Sagan, Acquiring Genomes: A Theory of the Origins of the Species, Dr. Margulis notes:

Although random mutations influenced the course of evolution, their influence was mainly by loss, alteration, and refinement. One mutation confers resistance to malaria but also makes happy blood cells into the deficient oxygen carriers of sickle cell anemics. Another converts a gorgeous newborn into a cystic fibrosis patient or a victim of early onset diabetes. One mutation causes a flighty red-eyed fruit fly to fail to take wing. Never, however, did that one mutation make a wing, a fruit, a woody stem, or a claw appear. Mutations, in summary, tend to induce sickness, death, or deficiencies. No evidence in the vast literature of heredity changes shows unambigious evidence that random mutation itself, even with geographical isolation of populations, leads to speciation. Then how do new species come into being?

Her honesty earned her the criticism of eminent materialists like Richard Dawkins, even though Margulis herself was a materialist and a supporter of microbes-to-man evolution. She simply recognized that the mechanisms scientists were offering were terribly insufficient to explain the evolution of the earth’s species. She did an excellent job of pointing out the subjectivity of the phylogenic tree models as well as the shortcomings of natural selection.

She told Discover magazine earlier this year, “This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists…Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn’t create.” She went on, “…[T]he laws of genetics showed stasis, not change. Mendel showed that the grandparent flowers and the offspring flowers could be identical to each other. There was no change through time.”

Source: https://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2011/1866/print/

If you doubted my sources, it is likewise confirmed by New York Times in this link: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/21/science/sciencespecial2/21peti.html

Note: Many of my sources is from wikipedia. Other sources are indicated.


Let me show you about the galapagos birds he used as basis for evolution. Its about a bird cross breeding with a different bird producing a new specie of birds isolated from its parental species. Here goes from a scientific journal.

Source: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/359/6372/224

As you can see, evolution through cross breeding is true. Though cross breeding may not be the sole factor affecting evolution. Still, cross breeding is a primarily aspect. So evolution is true on this aspect–bird to bird evolution. Its a scientific fact, but did it debunks religion? It did not. Bec what religion discredit as false, is an specie to specie evolution which concerns a fish turning into a bird or a bird turning into a beast or a beast turning into man. In short, fish to bird evolution is impossible. So is with a bird turning to a beast. Or a beast turning into man. That is the evolution that religion opposed, an interspecie transformation to a different categories of specie, but what the atheist tried to prove was an evolution of bird to another bird specie. Its was to the level of bird to bird evolution. Its not about birds turning to a beast–another category–or to any other categories around. Its not viable. Much so a beast to human.

How come its impossible for this selected manner? Bec there is incompatibility of flesh between them. Logically, incompatibility of DNA as the bible emphasized:

1 Corinthians 15:39
[39]All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds.

It was saying, fish cannot turn to birds. Birds cannot turn to beasts. Beasts cannot turn to men. There is no transition point possible for evolution for these toward another category of specie. Matter of fact is, in genesis, Adam was created and not a product of evolution. There was no beast to human evolution.

As far as my conversation with the atheist goes, there is no conclusive aspect that validates evolution.


Masama bang tawaging TANGA ang TANGA?

Bakit ang rapist tinatawag n’yong rapist?

TANGA-taong kulang ng kaalaman
RAPIST-taong nanggahasa

Di ba mas masamang salita ang rapist kaysa tanga?
So bakit tinatawag nyo ang tao na rapist pero hinde nyo ginagamit ang tanga?

Pagmumura daw kasi ang tanga.
At ang rapist ay hinde?

Ano ang pagmumura?
MURA-to belittle, to put in a lower position which he is not…

Pag sinabi mong rapist ang rapist, nagmumura ka ba?
Hindi. Kasi hinde mo minaliit kundi sinabi mo ang akma sa kanya.
Pag sinabi mong tanga ang tanga, nagmumura ka ba?
Hindi kasi hinde mo minaliit o pinababa ang level niya.
Tawagin mong rapist ang inosente
Tawaging tanga ang hindi tanga

So pag ginamit mo inappropriately ang mga denigrating words tulad ng tanga at rapist, nagmumura ka na noon.

hinde siya nagmumura kasi wala siyang minaliit o pinababang mga tao…
Pag sinabi mong tanga ang tanga, hinde mo pinababa kasi yon na yong level niya



Pag tinawag na tanga ang tanga, e FITLY SPOKEN yon kasi akma o fit sa pinatutungkulan kaya acceptable.


meaning, wag tawagin ang tanga na matalino, implying, pag tanga dapat tawaging tanga.

ISAIAH 5:20 woe to them that call evil good and good evil…THAT PUT BITTER FOR SWEET AND SWEET BITTER

ibig sabihin, kung magsalita tayo, dapat makatotohanan at akma.
Ang verse na yan ang nagbibigay karapatan sa amin na tawaging tanga ang tanga bilang pagtalima na dapat tawaging

At itoy a form of honesty.

2 Corinthians 13:7
[7]Now I pray to God that ye do no evil; not that we should appear approved, but that ye should do that which is honest, though we be as reprobates.

Dahil lahat ng itoy para sa katotohanan.

2 Corinthians 13:8
[8]For we can do nothing against the truth, but for the truth.



Philippians 4:9
[9]Those things, which ye have both learned, and received, and heard, and seen in me, do: and the God of peace shall be with you.

Ang mga verses na yan ang nagbibigay karapatan sa amin tawaging tanga ang tanga.
Kasi hinde naman masama.

Eto ba?
MATT 5:22 whosoever shall say to his brother raca shall be in danger of the council BUT WHOSOEVER SHALL SAY, THOU FOOL, SHALL BE IN DANGER OF HELL FIRE

iyan ay utos para sa kapatid na bawal tawagin ang kapatid sa iglesia na fool o tanga
Pero outside the church
Pwedeng tawagin ang tanga na tanga bilang pagsunod sa turo na dapat tawaging
Tulad ni paul na tinawag na tanga ang tanga.


Pwede ba yong bata na sabihing tanga ang nanay niya o sinuman?
Ang may karapatan e yung may kakayahang humatol righteously.


SINO yon?
Those who know how to discern good and evil.

HEB5:13-14 for everyone that use milk is unskillful in the word of righteousness for he is a babe

BABES are unskillful in words of righteousness.
Ibig sabihin, wala silang kakayahan humatol righteously.
Sino sila?

1COR 3:1 and i brethren could not speak unto you as unto spiritual, but as unto carnal unto babes in christ…

BABES in christ are brothers who are not yet knowledgeable of the truth bec they are unskillful of the words of righteousness.
Ibig sabihin, lahat ng walang kakayahan o kaalaman sa aral, e hinde pwedeng hatulan ang isang tao na tanga, kasi, pinapakain pa muna sila ng milk.
Ibig sabihin, ng milk, e mga basic na aral.
Wala pa silang kakayahang humatol.



Para magawa mo yan, you know how to discern good and evil.
Ibig sabihin, malawak ang alam mo sa bible.

2 Timothy 2:15
[15]Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Kahit anong oras ba
Kahit kaninong tanga kahit walang ginagawa sa yo?

Logically, hinde pwedeng sabihing TANGA ANG MONGOLOID
o sabihing tanga ang isang bumagsak sa klase

Nananakit ka na e. Wala kang compassion. Wala kang understanding, sympathy, consideration.




ibig sabihin, dont accuse a man as tanga, if he dont do you harm.
Anong harm?
There are 3 kinds of harm: physically, mentally and spiritually.

HARM SPIRITUALLY, implies, if a man tries to destroy your faith such as pastors preaching heresy…
Mga taong kadebate mo sa facebook,

Pwede mo silang tawaging TANGA! Kung alam mong tanga nga sila. At kung, kaya mong humatol ng matuwid.


Note: personal ko lang opinion to.