reply to post by MrXYZ
Edit add: And no you can't ask me that it would be off topic.
Darwinists claim we evolved from the simplest form of bacterial life to ever more complex forms of life. The most basic bacteria had less than 500
genes; man has over 22 thousand. In order for bacteria to evolve into man, organisms would have to be able to add genes. But there is no genetic
mechanism that adds a gene. (Mutations change an existing gene but never add a gene.) This means there is no mechanism for Darwinian Evolution and
this is a fatal flaw in the Theory of Evolution. The average single human gene is a piece of DNA comprised of 100,000 pairs of amino acids all of
which are perfectly sequenced. It is impossible for a new gene to appear by chance or by "natural selection."
You might ask "What about mutations? Can't they create a new gene". The answer is "Absolutely not." Mutations can change only existing genes. But
mutations have nothing whatever to do with creating an entirely new gene. We invite you to google or yahoo terms such as "add a gene" and you will
be able to verify that there has never been a case where a species added a gene. But apes would have had to add many genes (and be created anew) in
order to become human.
Darwinists tell us that all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor. They claim that life on Earth first began about 4 billion years ago as the
simplest form of single-cellular bacteria, called prokaryotes and the prokaryotes evolved into ever more complex organisms, such as multi-cellular
bacteria, then crustaceans, and then fish followed by amphibians, some of which evolved into reptiles, and some reptiles branched out and became
dinosaurs and birds, while some other reptiles evolved in another direction to become mammals, which include humans.
Scientists do not know how many genes the earliest prokaryotes had but the simplest bacteria of today have about 500 genes. Humans have about 22,410
genes. Because humans have about 22,000 more genes than prokaryotes, the only way prokaryotes could have evolved into humans would be by ADDING GENES
to their genome. In fact, the only way any species could have evolved to become a more complex organism is to increase its Gene Count. (The Gene Count
is the number of genes in a genome.)
Darwinian Evolution claims every species evolved from a predecessor species. An organism has to increase its Gene Count if it is going to evolve into
a more advanced and more complex organism. In order for Darwinian Evolution to work, there has to be a genetic mechanism for an organism to add a
gene. But there is no way to add a gene. Darwinian Evolution is fatally flawed.
If the Theory of Evolution were correct, the prokaryotes and their descendants would have had to increase their Gene Count tens of thousands of times
to go from 500 genes to over 22 thousand genes in order to evolve into Homo sapiens.
The ability to add genes is a required part of the Theory of Evolution. Since increasing the Gene Count is absolutely necessary for Darwinian
Evolution, how come evolution scientists NEVER talk about it? You have never read or heard any of them discuss this required part of Darwinian
he average ape gene has 100,000 base pairs (a base pair is essentially 2 amino acid molecules). How can 100,000 base pairs suddenly materialize inside
of an ape's sperm? And even if 100,000 base pairs can materialize out of thin air, how could all the base pairs be perfectly sequenced so that they
form a gene that actually helps the ape evolve into a man?
There is no evidence that it ever happens
Supporters of the Theory of Evolution never talk about the Gene Count because there is no genetic mechanism for adding a gene.
Both common sense and logic tells us it is impossible to add a gene to a chromosome.
Darwinists claim they have tons of evidence mutations occur and this is genetic evidence that supports Darwinian Evolution.
There is a ton of evidence that mutations occur - but a mutation is a change to an existing gene and mutations never result in actually adding a gene.
What is the true origin of life? How did life actually begin? Darwinists have a theory but their theory makes no sense at all.
They claim life on Earth began accidentally about 4 billion years ago when a chance bolt of lightning struck a lake full of primordial soup!
For over fifty years, most evolution scientists believe that the first living organism on Earth was accidentally created when a chance bolt of
lightning struck some water that contained all the building blocks of life, which they call the "primordial soup."
OK?!@?!? If we take off our logical hat and puff the magic dragon for a few hours, we can almost buy into the lightning stuff as a really remote
possibility. But then what? How did the first living organism then add genes thousands of times in order to advance up the evolutionary ladder?
For example, how did the ape that we all supposedly descended from add the genes needed to make the transition to Homo sapiens?
Are the Darwin-lovers telling us that the ape was swinging from a tree in a lightning storm, got struck by a "fortuitous bolt of lightning," then
fell into a primordial pond, and instead of having its testicles fried, they started to produce sperm with a miraculous new gene?
See how absurd Darwinism really is?
[edit on 24-5-2010 by Loken68]