Wednesday, August 4, 2010

Cambrian Explosion - Refutation Of Human Evolution

Psalm 104:24
O Lord, how manifold are your works! In wisdom you have made them all. The earth is full of Your possessions
This following videos and post are excellent for highlighting the different perspectives that Theism and Materialism have on classifying exactly what 'life' is:

The Mystery Of Life - God's Creation & Providence - video

Do frogs and bacteria have souls?

Is the Soul Immortal? (J.P. Moreland)- (9:32 minute mark) video

Do dead dogs stay dead dogs?

Again the materialistic presumption of blind chance being the only reasonable cause must be dealt with. Exactly how did all these different forms of life get here? There are only two options for how this amazing variety of life got here; life either originated on this earth gradually by blind evolutionary processes, or life was deliberately introduced by a Creator, either suddenly and/or gradually.
"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous."
R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943), p. 63.
One of the most enigmatic 'novelties' of the Cambrian explosion was the appearance of unique sexual reproduction for a wide variety of different species/phyla:
How did the sexes originate? Why is it that the vast majority of living things require a "male and female" to reproduce? If evolution were true - doesn't it make much more sense that EVERY living organism was self-replicating and required no useless energy expenditure? When did the first male get here? When did the first female get here? How? Why? Wouldn't they have had to appear fully functional and at the same time in order for the next generation of organisms to arrive? Of course, they would. So, how is it that the first male and female for almost 2 million living organisms arrived together and fully functional so that reproduction could take place? "Sex is the QUEEN of evolutionary biology problems."
Dr. Graham Bell - In his book, 'The Masterpiece of Nature'
Ian Juby's sex video - (Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve?) - video

Moreover, its been known for quite a while, as Walter Remine relates in this following interview, that sexual reproduction severely limits genetic variability rather than enhances it as Darwinists had originally thought.

Walter ReMine on the Origin of Sexual Reproduction - interview

This following study concurs:
Sex Is Not About Promoting Genetic Variation, Researchers Argue - (July 7, 2011)
Excerpt: Biology textbooks maintain that the main function of sex is to promote genetic diversity. But Henry Heng, Ph.D., associate professor in WSU's Center for Molecular Medicine and Genetics, says that's not the case.,,,
,,,the primary function of sex is not about promoting diversity. Rather, it's about keeping the genome context -- an organism's complete collection of genes arranged by chromosome composition and topology -- as unchanged as possible, thereby maintaining a species' identity. This surprising analysis has been published as a cover article in a recent issue of the journal Evolution.,,,
For nearly 130 years, traditional perceptions hold that asexual reproduction generates clone-like offspring and sexual reproduction leads to more diverse offspring. "In reality, however, the relationship is quite the opposite," said Heng.,,,
The following article shows why the Theistic Evolutionary model as it is commonly used in science, or more properly the Deistic evolutionary model of 'front loading' into the initial conditions of the universe, is insufficient to explain the appearance of all subsequent life on earth:
The Front-loading Fiction - Dr. Robert Sheldon - 2009
Excerpt: Historically, the argument for front-loading came from Laplacian determinism based on a Newtonian or mechanical universe--if one could control all the initial conditions, then the outcome was predetermined. First quantum mechanics, and then chaos-theory has basically destroyed it, since no amount of precision can control the outcome far in the future. (The exponential nature of the precision required to predetermine the outcome exceeds the information storage of the medium.),,, Even should God have infinite knowledge of the outcome of such a biological algorithm, the information regarding its outcome cannot be contained within the system itself.
Is Theistic (Front Loaded) Evolution Plausible? - Stephen Meyer - video
"Limits to Self-Organization (From Initial Conditions)" - podcast
Excerpt: Dr. Johns shows that Darwinian evolution is actually a type of a self-organizing process, and that it is limited in the types of biological structures it can produce.
Many people have been taught the evidence in the fossil record overwhelmingly confirms gradual evolution. Yet this is not the case at all. The fossil record itself is one of the most crushing things for people who believe in gradual evolution.

Here is a informative audio podcast, by Dr. Fazale Rana, that gives an excellent overview of how the fossil record matches up with the Genesis chronology of creation;

Complex Life Emerged from Sea Earlier Than Thought - Fazale Rana - April 2011

Many times atheists will attack the Genesis account of creation in the Bible by saying that plant life on the land did not precede the Cambrian explosion of animal life in the seas as the Bible account in Genesis says it does.
Genesis 1:11-12
Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. The land produced vegetation:
Yet, at about the thirty minute mark of the following video, Dr. Hugh Ross reveals that scientists have now discovered evidence that the Genesis account is in fact correct and that plant life on land did in fact precede the explosion of animal life in the seas of the Cambrian era.

Science and Scripture: Enemies or Allies? - Hugh Ross - video (recorded in October 2011)

Here is the relevant paper that Dr. Ross referenced at the 31 minute mark, as well as a more recent paper that establishes that life on land preceded life in the seas (just as Genesis holds that it does):
Earth’s earliest non-marine eukaryotes - April 2011
Excerpt: They offer direct evidence of eukaryotes living in freshwater aquatic and subaerially exposed habitats during the Proterozoic era. The apparent dominance of eukaryotes in non-marine settings by 1 Gyr ago indicates that eukaryotic evolution on land may have commenced far earlier than previously thought.

Greening of the Earth pushed way back in time - July 22, 2013
Excerpt: Conventional scientific wisdom has it that plants and other creatures have only lived on land for about 500 million years, but a new study is pointing to evidence for life on land that is four times as old -- at 2.2 billion years ago and almost half way back to the inception of the planet.,,,
,,,these new fossils set a new and earlier benchmark for the greening of the land,"

Australian Multicellular Fossils Point to Life On Land, Not at Sea, Geologist Proposes - Dec. 12, 2012
Excerpt: Ediacaran fossils, he said, represent "an independent evolutionary radiation of life on land that preceded by at least 20 million years the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals in the sea." Increased chemical weathering by large organisms on land may have been needed to fuel the demand of nutrient elements by Cambrian animals. Independent discoveries of Cambrian fossils comparable with Ediacaran ones is evidence, he said, that even in the Cambrian, more than 500 million years ago, life on land may have been larger and more complex than life in the sea.
Retallack leaves open the possibility that some Ediacaran fossils found elsewhere in the world may not be land-based in origin, writing in his conclusion that the many different kinds of these fossils need to be tested and re-evaluated.
"The key evidence for this new view is that the beds immediately below the cover sandstones in which they are preserved were fossil soils," he said. "In other words the fossils were covered by sand in life position at the top of the soils in which they grew. In addition, frost features and chemical composition of the fossil soils are evidence that they grew in cold dry soils, like lichens in tundra today, rather than in tropical marine lagoons."

Ediacarans Not Related to Cambrian Animals - December 16, 2012
Excerpt: “These fossils have been a first-class scientific mystery,” he said. “They are the oldest large multicellular fossils. They lived immediately before the Cambrian evolutionary explosion that gave rise to familiar modern groups of animals.”,,
If not sea creatures, what are they? Retallack suggested they could be “lichens, other microbial consortia, fungal fruiting bodies, slime molds, flanged pedestals of biological soil crusts, and even casts of needle ice.” In the paper and the press release, he had very little to say about evolution, except that the Ediacarans represent “an independent evolutionary radiation of life on land that preceded by at least 20 million years the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals in the sea.”
What is termed the 'Cambrian Explosion' is a total departure from the gradual theory of evolution and yet the Cambrian Explosion finds easy resolution for its suddenness in God's fifth day of creation in Genesis.
Genesis 1:20
Then God said, "Let the waters teem with swarms of living creatures,",,,
In the following audio podcast, Dr. Stephen Meyer speaks on the insurmountable difficulty of extrapolating the neo-Darwinian mechanism of Random Mutation and Natural Selection as a explanation for the Cambrian Explosion:

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Why Are We Still Debating Darwin? pt. 2 - podcast

Dr. Meyer's interview with C-SPAN's BookTV, a comprehensive discussion of Darwin's Doubt: Summer 2013

Socrates in the City - "Darwin's Doubt" Eric Metaxas with Stephen Meyer - video

If anyone has not read Darwin's Doubt yet, Dr. Paul Giem has done a chapter by chapter 'cliff notes' video series on the book here:

Darwin's Doubt - Paul Giem - video playlist

Of particular interest from the video playlist is this segment:

Darwin's Doubt - Chapter 12 - Complex Adaptations and the Neo-Darwinian Math - Dr. Paul Giem - video

Stephen Meyer Answers Charles Marshall (Peer Reviewed Paper) on Darwin's Doubt - October 2013 (4 part response)

Steve Meyer vs. hostile reviewer Charles Marshall (audio of debate) - Dec. 1, 2013
Does Lightning-Fast Evolution Solve the Cambrian Enigma? - Stephen C. Meyer October 24, 2013
Excerpt: The authors assumed that natural selection and random mutations were responsible for the change that had occurred and then simply asserted that natural selection could produce the rate of morphological change they measured. In other words, they begged the question as to the rapidity with which the mechanism of mutation and selection can produce morphological novelty. They did not demonstrate that the neo-Darwinian mechanism has the creative power to generate morphological novelty this quickly.
Darwin’s Doubt and the Plea for more time! – Dr. Stephen Meyer - audio

Current Biology Paper's Assumptions and Methodology Dramatically Underestimate "Rates of Change" in the Cambrian Explosion - Casey Luskin October 31, 2013

Crevo had a good summary of the Darwinian papers that tried to answer Meyer's book, 'Darwin's Doubt':
Evolutionists Tap Dance Around Cambrian Explosion - September 25, 2013
Comment after review of the articles: "The Darwinist answers to the Cambrian explosion are vacuous, vapid, vacant, void, and vagrant. They dodge the question, filling their time with question-begging circular irrelevancies. They fail to acknowledge the existence of their critics, except when necessary to vent their voluminous voracity for vituperation.
Where did the information come from to build new body plans? That is the question! “Uh, duh, well, maybe evolution just ran faster, that’s all. Maybe there was more oxygen back then. Maybe that’s just how evolution works. Maybe a combination of the above.” Are you satisfied? Anyone giving answers like that to explain a major failure of their project should be fired on the spot."
Here are more thorough looks at the major flaws in all the critical reviews of 'Darwin's Doubt':

Darwin's Doubt - Reviews - Part 1 - by Paul Giem - video
Darwin's Doubt - Reviews - Part 2 - by Paul Giem - video
Darwin's Doubt - Reviews - Part 3 - by Paul Giem - video
Darwin's Doubt - Reviews - Part 4 - by Paul Giem - video

A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes – David Berlinski July 9, 2013
A One-Man Clade – David Berlinski – July 18, 2013
Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013

Further notes:

Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin's Dilemma - The Significance of Sponge Embryos - video
Dr. Stephen Meyer: Darwin's Dilemma - Where did the information come from? - video
Dr. Stephen Meyer - Why Intelligent Design Describes the Cambrian Explosion - video

Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 - video
Part 2 - video

Erwin and Valentine's The Cambrian Explosion Affirms Major Points in Darwin's Doubt: The Cambrian Enigma Is "Unresolved" - June 26, 2013

Awesome graphic on Cambrian Explosion from 'Darwin's Doubt'
"Over the past 150 years or so, paleontologists have found many representatives of the phyla that were well-known in Darwin’s time (by analogy, the equivalent of the three primary colors) and a few completely new forms altogether (by analogy, some other distinct colors such as green and orange, perhaps). And, of course, within these phyla, there is a great deal of variety. Nevertheless, the analogy holds at least insofar as the differences in form between any member of one phylum and any member of another phylum are vast, and paleontologists have utterly failed to find forms that would fill these yawning chasms in what biotechnologists call “morphological space.” In other words, they have failed to find the paleolontogical equivalent of the numerous finely graded intermediate colors (Oedleton blue, dusty rose, gun barrel gray, magenta, etc.) that interior designers covet. Instead, extensive sampling of the fossil record has confirmed a strikingly discontinuous pattern in which representatives of the major phyla stand in stark isolation from members of other phyla, without intermediate forms filling the intervening morphological space."
Stephen Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (p. 70)
Here is a very beautiful and well narrated video on the Cambrian explosion by master narrator David Attenborough.

David Attenborough's First Life Episode 22 Conquest - video
Undead: The Myth of the 80-Million-Year Cambrian Explosion - November 13, 2013
Excerpt: the trick is premised on "including as part of the Cambrian explosion (a) the origin of the Ediacaran organisms in the late Precambrian (which no serious scientist considers to be ancestral to the Cambrian animals), and (b) the small shelly fossils at the base of the Cambrian and (c) the main pulse of morphological innovation in the early Cambrian, and (d) subsequent diversification events right up until the end of the Cambrian period.",,, - Meyer notes that Marshall himself elsewhere excludes the precious small shellies.,,,-
Cambrian Explosion Ruins Darwin's Tree of Life (2 minutes in 24 hour day) - video

Pre-Cambrian Explosion - Jonathan Wells - (How do you change a jellyfish into a trilobite?) - video

The Cambrian Explosion - Back To A Miracle! - video

Darwin's Dilemma - Excellent Cambrian Explosion Movie
Darwin's Dilemma - The Cambrian Explosion - In Darwin's Own Words
Excerpt: Consequently, if the theory be true, it is indisputable that, before the lowest Silurian or Cambrian stratum was deposited long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Cambrian age to the present day; and that during these vast periods the world swarmed with living creatures…
To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods, I can give no satisfactory answer…
The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.
[emphasis added]
—Chapter IX, “On the Imperfection of the Geological Record,” On the Origin of Species, Charles Darwin - fifth edition (1869), pp. 378-381.
Origin Of Species - The Book - online

Darwin's illustration of an evolutionary tree, from The Origin of Species (1859).

The following video, though prefaced with unsupported Darwinian assertions, is an excellent animation of a few of the the animals of the Cambrian Explosion.

Anomalocaris - Sea Monster - video

Cambrian and Ediacara Biota - Animated Video Snapshot

Darwin's Doubt - Photo Gallery of Cambrian fossils

Darwin's Dilemma Faq Page: Questions about the Cambrian Explosion, Evolution, and Intelligent Design

More Problems with TalkOrigins' Response on the Cambrian Explosion - Casey Luskin - May 22, 2012

How "Sudden" Was the Cambrian Explosion? Nick Matzke Misreads Stephen Meyer and the Paleontological Literature; New Yorker Recycles Misrepresentation - Casey Luskin - July 16, 2013
Ediacaran embryos in retrospect - David Tyler - January 28, 2013
Excerpt: "there is currently no convincing evidence for advanced animals with bilateral symmetry in the Doushantuo biota". This particular quest for animals preceding the Cambrian Explosion has drawn a blank. Needless to say, Darwin's dilemma remains in full force.

When Nature Resists: Explaining the Origin of the Animal Phyla - Paul Nelson - April 5, 2013
Excerpt: ,,,lately, I've run across something related to ontogenetic depth that is, well, mind-blowing.
Since 1859, the origin of not a single bilaterian phylum (animal body plan) has been explained in a step-by-step (neo-Darwinian) fashion, where random mutation and natural selection were, as textbooks assert, the primary causal mechanisms. Take your pick of the phyla: Mollusca, Brachiopoda, Chordata, Arthropoda, you name it -- and go looking in the scientific literature for the incremental pathway, via mutation and selection, showing how that body plan was assembled from its putative bilaterian Last Common Ancestor.
You'll be looking a long time.,,,
Exotic Cambrian Animals and Plants and Ediacaran biota- Animated videos
Fossil Gallery - images of species from Cambrian period - Main Gallery
The Main Gallery is a comprehensive source of information based on the latest scientific research covering the majority of species so far described from the Burgess Shale. It contains a growing collection of over 500 high resolution images representing 184 species in 135 genera. In addition, dozens of scientifically accurate drawings and breathtaking digital animations will allow you to visualize these organisms in three dimensions and see how they lived.
Anomalocaris - The largest predator of the Cambrian (3D Animation)

Virtual Sea Odyssey; Observe the creatures who lived in the Burgess Shale community from a "virtual submarine". - video
"Darwin's Dilemma examines some of the most important fossil discoveries ever made and with them, a mystery deeper than Charles Darwin ever imagined. For the fossil record of the Cambrian Explosion does not reveal the gradual development of life forms as Darwin posited in his work, but a period in which compound eyes, articulated limbs, sophisticated sensory organs and skeletal frames burst into existence seemingly out of nowhere." -
Anika Smith - Discovery Institute
It is in the ancient seas of the Cambrian explosion, some 540 million years ago, where we find the abrupt appearance of many strangely diverse and complex forms of life. These complex life-forms appear suddenly with no evidence of transition from the bacteria and few other stable, and simple, life-forms that preceded them in the fossil record. These following quotes clearly illustrate this point.
Materialistic Basis of the Cambrian Explosion is Elusive: BioEssays Vol. 31 (7):736 - 747 - July 2009
Excerpt: "going from an essentially static system billions of years in existence to the one we find today, a dynamic and awesomely complex system whose origin seems to defy explanation. Part of the intrigue with the Cambrian explosion is that numerous animal phyla with very distinct body plans arrive on the scene in a geological blink of the eye, with little or no warning of what is to come in rocks that predate this interval of time." ---"Thus, elucidating the materialistic basis of the Cambrian explosion has become more elusive, not less, the more we know about the event itself, and cannot be explained away by coupling extinction of intermediates with long stretches of geologic time, despite the contrary claims of some modern neo-Darwinists."

Does Lots of Sediment in the Ocean Solve the "Mystery" of the Cambrian Explosion? - Casey Luskin April, 2012
Excerpt: I think the Cambrian fossil record is surprisingly complete. I think it may be more complete than we realize. The reason for that is, for instance, if you look at the stratigraphy of the world, if I go and collect Cambrian rocks in Wales and find certain fossils, if I then go to China, I don't find the same species but I find the same sorts of fossils. If I go into Carboniferous rocks, I go to Canada, they are the same as what I find in this country. So there is a clear set of faunas and floras that take us through geological time. The overall framework is falling into position. - Simon Conway Morris

Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - Sept. 2009
Excerpt: "The truth is that (finding) “exceptionally preserved microbes” from the late Precambrian actually deepen Darwin’s dilemma, because they suggest that if there had been ancestors to the Cambrian phyla they would have been preserved."
Deepening Darwin's Dilemma - Jonathan Wells - The Cambrian Explosion - video

Jonathan Wells - Cambrian Explosion - video
The earliest Cambrian record of animals and ocean geochemical change
Adam C. Maloof, Susannah M. Porter, John L. Moore, Frank O. Dudas, Samuel A. Bowring, John A. Higgins, David A. Fike, and Michael P. Eddy
Geological Society of America Bulletin, November 2010, v. 122, p. 1731-1774 | doi:10.1130/B30346.1
Abstract: The Cambrian diversification of animals was long thought to have begun with an explosive phase at the start of the Tommotian Age. Recent stratigraphic discoveries, however, suggest that many taxa appeared in the older Nemakit-Daldynian Age, and that the diversification was more gradual. [. . .] The time line suggests that the diversification of skeletal animals began early in the Nemakit-Daldynian, with much of the diversity appearing by the middle of the age. Fossil first appearances occurred in three pulses, with a small pulse in the earliest Nemakit-Daldynian (ca. 540-538 Ma), a larger pulse in the mid- to late Nemakit-Daldynian (ca. 534-530 Ma), and a moderate pulse in the Tommotian (ca. 524-522 Ma). These pulses are associated with rapid reorganizations of the carbon cycle, and are superimposed on long-term increases in sea level and the hydrothermal flux of Sr.
Recent experimental work has not been very cooperative to evolutionists, to put it mildly, in elucidating plausible evolutionary routes to multicellular organisms from single celled organisms:
Brown Algae and The Serendipity of Multicellularity - Cornelius Hunter - June 2010
Excerpt: Instead of the expectation that multicellularity arose once and then proliferated, evolutionists now must say it arose independently several times. And instead of a sort of primitive multicellularity emerging and then undergoing evolutionary refinement, we must believe evolution first produced profoundly unlikely molecular machines, which then in turn enabled multicellularity.

That Conference On The Evolution of Multicellularity Revealed The Usual Problems - Cornelius Hunter - December 25, 2013
Excerpt: "The emergence of multicellular animals or metazoans from their single-celled ancestors is one of the most important evolutionary transitions in the history of life. However, little is known about how this transition took place.",,,
"That is nowhere more true than with the miracle of multicellularity which, if evolution is true, must have independently evolved more than, err, twenty-five times.
Here are more articles on the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion:
A Graduate Student (Nick Matzke) Writes - David Berlinski July 9, 2013
Excerpt: Representatives of twenty-three of the roughly twenty-seven fossilized animal phyla, and the roughly thirty-six animal phyla overall, are present in the Cambrian fossil record. Twenty of these twenty-three major groups make their appearance with no discernible ancestral forms in either earlier Cambrian or Precambrian strata. Representatives of the remaining three or so animal phyla originate in the late Precambrian, but they do so as abruptly as the animals that appeared first in Cambrian. Moreover, these late Precambrian animals lack clear affinities with the representatives of the twenty or so phyla that first appear in the Cambrian.
The main evidences used by Darwinists for claiming that material processes can generate genetic information are thoroughly refuted in the following article:

Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
Evolution's Big Bang:
“Yet, here is the real puzzle of the Cambrian Explosion for the theory of evolution. All the known phyla (large categories of biological classification), except one, first appear in the Cambrian period. There are no ancestors. There are no intermediates. Fossil experts used to think that the Cambrian lasted 75 million years.... Eventually the Cambrian was shortened to only 30 million years. If that wasn't bad enough, the time frame of the real work of bringing all these different creatures into existence was shortened to the first five to ten million years of the Cambrian. This is extraordinarily fast! Harvard's Stephen Jay Gould stated, "Fast is now a lot faster than we thought, and that is extraordinarily interesting." What an understatement! "Extraordinarily impossible" might be a better phrase! .... The differences between the creatures that suddenly appear in the Cambrian are enormous. In fact these differences are so large many of these animals are one of a kind. Nothing like them existed before and nothing like them has ever appeared again.” Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, University of Illinois (B.S., zoology), North Texas State University (M.S., population genetics), University of Texas at Dallas (M.S., Ph.D., molecular biology).

The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs - Dr. Fazale Rana
Excerpt: Based on fossils found in southern China and in the Burgess Shale deposits of the Canadian Rockies, biologists know that nearly all the animal phyla (more than 70) known to exist throughout the earth’s history appeared essentially at once about 540 million years ago.,,, This event, known as the Cambrian “Explosion”, occurred over an extremely narrow window of geological time (~5-10 million years based on western scientific literature and less than 3 million years based on Chinese scientific literature).3 Since then, arguably no new animal phyla have appeared. In fact, about 40 animal phyla have disappeared since that time.,,, researchers consider the skeletal designs that do show up during the Cambrian Explosion essentially maximal in number.

"Eyes and gills, jointed limbs and intestines, sponges and worms and insects and fish, all had appeared simultaneously. There had not been a gradual evolution of simple phyla such as sponges into the more complex phyla of worms and then on to other life forms such as insects. According to these fossils, at the most fundamental level of animal life, the phylum or basic body plan, the dogma of classical Darwinian evolution, that the simple had evolved into the more complex, that invertebrates had evolved into vertebrates over one hundred to two hundred million year was fantasy, not fact."
Gerald L. Schroeder - The Science of God - Pg. 26

"We do not know why the “Cambrian explosion” occurred when it did, but we have no reason to think that it had to happen then or had to happen at all." - Stephen Jay Gould - More Reflections in Natural History, p. 139
A "peer reviewed" paper was published in 2004, pointing out the obvious impossibilities of evolutionary processes producing such an explosion of complex functional information in the Cambrian explosion. Yet, just for questioning that unguided Darwinian evolution could do as such, the paper brought forth much persecution of the editor who dared allowed the 'heretical' publication of 'doubting the sufficiency of neo-Darwinian evolution' to produce such massive amounts of complex functional information in the Cambrian explosion. The persecution was so severe it caught the attention of a Congressional Investigation Committee.

Here are websites and a video clip describing that persecution:

Smithsonian Controversy – Richard Sternberg

podcast - Richard Sternberg and Douglas Axe of Biologic Institute spoke with Michael Medved about the cruel career consequences for their support giving intelligent design a fair hearing.

Get Expelled - Richard Sternberg - video

"Expelled Exposed" Exposed: Your One-Stop Rebuttal to Attacks on the Documentary Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

Why Intelligent Design Describes the Cambrian Explosion - Stephen Meyer - video

Here is an excerpt of that completely inoffensive peer reviewed paper which ruffled so many neo-Darwinian feathers:
Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories By: Stephen C. Meyer; Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington
"To say that the fauna of the Cambrian period appeared in a geologically sudden manner also implies the absence of clear transitional intermediate forms connecting Cambrian animals with simpler pre-Cambrian forms. And, indeed, in almost all cases, the Cambrian animals have no clear morphological antecedents in earlier Vendian or Precambrian fauna (Miklos 1993, Erwin et al. 1997:132, Steiner & Reitner 2001, Conway Morris 2003b:510, Valentine et al. 2003:519-520). Further, several recent discoveries and analyses suggest that these morphological gaps may not be merely an artifact of incomplete sampling of the fossil record (Foote 1997, Foote et al. 1999, Benton & Ayala 2003, Meyer et al. 2003), suggesting that the fossil record is at least approximately reliable (Conway Morris 2003b:505)."
Moreover, this was not the first time the Smithsonian was involved in concealing the evidence of the Cambrian Explosion from the public;
Evolution: Rationality vs. Randomness
Excerpt: These (Cambrian) fossils could have changed the entire concept of evolution from a tree of life to a bush of life. And they did, but not in 1909. Walcott knew he had discovered something very important. That is why he collected the vast number of samples. But he could not believe that evolution could have occurred in such a burst of life forms, “simultaneously” to use the words of Scientific American. This was totally against the theory of Darwin in which he and his colleagues were steeped. And so Walcott reburied the fossils, all 60,000 of them, this time in the drawers of his laboratory. Walcott was the director of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington D.C., the largest array of museums in the world. It was not until 1985 that they were rediscovered (in the draws of the Smithsonian). Had Walcott wanted, he could have hired a phalanx of graduate students to work on the fossils. But he chose not to rock the boat of evolution. Today fossil representatives of the Cambrian era have been found in China, Africa, the British Isles, Sweden, Greenland. The explosion was worldwide. But before it became proper to discuss the extraordinary nature of the explosion, the data were simply not reported. It is a classic example of cognitive dissonance, but an example for which we have all paid a severe price.
Interestingly, 'soft-bodied' Jellyfish may have appeared in the fossil record a few ten million years before the Cambrian Explosion, and have remained virtually unchanged since they first appeared in the fossil record. Moreover, contrary to evolutionary thinking, Jellyfish appear to have essential purpose in preparing, and maintaining, the ecosystem for the Cambrian Explosion that was to follow.
Instant Body Plans: The Case of Jellyfish - July 26, 2013
Excerpt: Cubomedusae (box jellyfish) are particularly interesting. They have eyes that are almost human-like! "As the name depicts, Cubozoans have a squarish shape with four tentacles and four rhopalia. Each rhopalium contains six eyes of four different types, two of which (the upper lens eye and the lower lens eye) are highly developed image-forming eyes with cornea, pupil, lens, and retina, much like our own...."
"The earliest widely accepted animal fossils are rather modern-looking cnidarians, possibly from around 580 million years ago, although fossils from the Doushantuo Formation can only be dated approximately." So it's not clear that the dates are right, but even if they precede the main (Cambrian) explosion by 40 million years, they are already "modern-looking."

Do Jellyfish go through complete metamorphosis?
Excerpt: Yes, it looks different every stage of it's life. Jellyfishes go through 2 stages. The polyp stage, then the medusae stage. When a jellyfish is a fertilized egg, it is called planula. When the planula is released from the pouches of the jellyfish's tentacles, it will swim to the bottom of the ocean, attach itself, and start growing. This is known as the polyp stage. Then it will start "budding" and separate. The separated part would then grow into a jellyfish, which is known as the medusae stage.

Phylum - Cnidaria (Jellyfish, Anemones, Corals, Hydras)
Excerpt: Cnidarians all have two cell layers – an outer protective epidermis and an inner gastrodermis. Between them is a jelly-like matrix called mesoglea. These layers surround an inner cavity called the gastrovascular cavity.
The epidermis layer is made up of many different types of cells. There are cells that contain muscles fibers (epitheliomuscular cells). These contract to allow the animal to move. Nerve cells make up a “nerve net” in the body that works with the muscle fibers to produce movement. There are also undifferentiated cells, called interstitial cells, that give rise to other cell types. Interstitial cells form eggs and sperm.
Interstitial cells also form cnidocytes in some species (like the jellyfish) which are special fluid-filled cells called “stinging cells.” Inside each stinging cell sits a spiral fiber, called a nematocyst, that is coiled and ready to spring. If a stinging cell is touched, it triggers the nematocyst, which instantly uncoils to catch prey. Some also inject a toxin that paralyzes prey. Then the tentacles around the mouth move the prey inside where it is digested. In some species the cnidocyte cells contain spirocysts that are sticky threads that are used to catch prey or stick to surfaces. These are common in corals and sea anemones. There are also ptychocysts cells in some species, which help the animal anchor to the seabed.

Marine animals cause a stir - July 2009
Excerpt: Kakani Katija and John Dabiri used field measurements of jellyfish swimming in a remote island lake, combined with a new theoretical model, to demonstrate that the contribution of living organisms to ocean mixing via this mechanism is substantial — of the same order of magnitude as winds and tides. (Winds and tides, due to their prevention of stagnation, are known to be essential for life on earth.)
Amazing Jellies - video

Picture of Jellyfish exhibiting bioluminescence:

What are Some Bioluminescent Animals?

Like Jellyfish, Sponges also preceded the Cambrian explosion and are also found to have essential purpose for preparing, and maintaining, the ecosystem for the Cambrian Explosion of life that was to follow:
Sponges Determine Coral Reef's Nutrient Cycle - 2005
Excerpt: Sponges, which have worldwide distribution in the oceans, filter water. They take up planktonic particles such as bacteria and excrete inorganic nutrients. In turn, these nutrients can facilitate the growth of marine plants and other organisms. Sponges filter water at a phenomenal rate: if the seawater were to remain stationary, the sponges would have completely pumped it away within five minutes,,,, these organisms play a key role in the marine nutrient cycle due to their incredible capacity to convert enormous quantities of organic plankton into inorganic material (nutrients).
Barrel and Chimney Sponges Filtering Water - video

Fossils of all types of sponges alive today have been found virtually unchanged in rocks dated from 635 to 580 million years ago. Moreover, some sponges with photosynthesizing endosymbionts can live in low oxygen environments and produce up to three times more oxygen than they consume. As well as more organic matter than they consume (Wikipedia).
Excerpt: While most of the approximately 5,000–10,000 known species feed on bacteria and other food particles in the water, some host photosynthesizing micro-organisms as endosymbionts and these alliances often produce more food and oxygen than they consume.
Also of note, sponges are shown to have highly specific and stable microbiomes (which is not what evolution predicts) :
Different sponge species (of the same genus) have highly specific, stable microbiomes - January 21, 2014
Excerpt: The sea sponge is about as simple as an animal can get, but its associated bacterial community—its microbiome —is known to approach the complexity of the diverse microbiome in the human gut.
Now, scientists,, have shown that different species of Hexadella sponges each have a highly specific and stable microbiome, not only in terms of the most abundant members of the associated microbial community, but the rare members as well.
"When we looked at what microbial community occurred in a species of sponge, we always found the same community, no matter where geographically and at which depth the sponge [lived],"
Hexadella (Genus)

Though sponges demonstrate extreme stasis of morphology (conservation of shape), throughout the hundreds of millions of years they have been in the fossil record, that precludes them from being antecedent to the Cambrian Explosion or anything else for that matter, evolutionists have none-the-less tried to 'shoe-horn' sponges into being ancestral to the Cambrian Explosion. The evolutionists have tried to do this 'shoe-horning' from a very biased reading of gene sequence similarity evidence. This following article has a very good critique of their severely biased methodology of 'cherry picking' gene sequences:
Explosion of the Blob - August 2010
Excerpt: 'By saying that nearly one-third of the genetic toolkit “emerged” in a blank period before the fossils of the first actual sponge, and that the changes “occurred” in undescribed “sponge-like forebears,” Mann shielded the fact that there is not only no evidence for such an ancestor, but no known mechanism by which genes with foresight would have emerged in single-celled creatures.'
The mysterious Ediacara biota, which appeared apparently abruptly before, or maybe alongside, the Sponges and Jellyfish, in the pre-Cambrian fossil record, largely disappeared from the fossil record a few million years before the Cambrian Explosion and thus are not seen to be viable as precursors to the Cambrian Explosion.
Plant or Animal? Mysterious Fossils Defy Classification
Excerpt: "Animals in the Ediacaran Period are almost universally bizarre, and it is very difficult to place them in any modern animal phyla," Xiao told LiveScience.

The Avalon Explosion:
Excerpt: Ediacara fossils [575 to 542 million years ago (Ma)] represent Earth's oldest known complex macroscopic life forms,,, A comprehensive quantitative analysis of these fossils indicates that the oldest Ediacara assemblage—the Avalon assemblage (575 to 565 Ma)—already encompassed the full range of Ediacara morphospace. (i.e. they appeared abruptly in the fossil record and retained their same basic shape and form throughout their tenure in the fossil record before they went extinct prior to the Cambrian explosion.)
It is very probable that, as with photosynthetic bacteria, sulfate reducing bacteria, sponges, and jellyfish, Ediacara biota will ultimately be found to have a essential biogeochemical role in preparing the earth for more advanced life to appear in the Cambrian explosion. These following papers, although evolutionary in their basis, offer a few tantalizing clues as to what that essential purpose for Ediacara biota might have been.
Australian Multicellular Fossils Point to Life On Land, Not at Sea, Geologist Proposes - Dec. 12, 2012
Excerpt: Ediacaran fossils, he said, represent "an independent evolutionary radiation of life on land that preceded by at least 20 million years the Cambrian evolutionary explosion of animals in the sea." Increased chemical weathering by large organisms on land may have been needed to fuel the demand of nutrient elements by Cambrian animals.

The mysterious Ediacara biota:
Excerpt: "many questions remain. In particular, we might consider why the earliest known Ediacarans thrived in a deep ocean setting, when the oxygen apparently so vital for their evolution had already been abundant in shallow marine environments for millions of years."
This following study suggests that Ediacaran biota may have contributed in helping to detoxify the deep ocean:
You Mean There Really Was a Cambrian Explosion? - June 21 2010
Excerpt: “It has traditionally been assumed that the first rise in atmospheric oxygen eventually led to oxygenation of the deep ocean around 1.8 billion years ago. “This assumption has been called into question over recent years, and here we show that the ocean remained oxygen-free but became rich in toxic hydrogen-sulphide over an area that extended more than 100 km from the continents. It took a second major rise in atmospheric oxygen around 580 million years ago to oxygenate the deep ocean.
Before the Ediacaran explosion 600 million years ago, the oldest fossils found appear to be 'microbial colonial fossils' that are 2.1 billion years old, and are separated by hundreds of millions of years from the Ediacaran biota. Moreover these 'fossils', that seemed to cause such excitement among evolutionists, are merely single celled organisms that lived in complex colonies that had no complex internal organs, nor complex body plans save for the interesting colonial pattern of the single type of cell. Here is the study and a following article putting the 'fossils' into correct perspective:

Large colonial organisms with coordinated growth in oxygenated environments 2.1 Gyr (billion years) ago - July 2010
Do New Fossils Soften the Cambrian Explosion? - July 2010
Excerpt: Second, these "fossils" are of dubious interpretation. They may be nothing more than fairy-ring colonies growing outward like bacteria in a Petri dish. Perhaps the matlike remains were flexible enough to fold on the inside in some cases. There is no indication of a coelum or tissue differentiation. They do not appear transitional to Ediacaran fossils, let alone to Cambrian animals.
It was amazing how quickly some evolutionists jumped on this very inconclusive evidence for 'fossils' of pre-Cambrian complex life hundreds of millions of years removed from the Cambrian explosion. I guess it just goes to show how desperate some evolutionists are for some evidence, any evidence, to counter the clear theistic implications that the Cambrian Explosion presents for life on earth:

The suddenness of the Cambrian explosion has now been made even more dramatic since the scant 'track' evidence, that evolutionists had claimed were the tracks of worms in the pre-Cambrian strata, has now been brought into severe question:
Discovery Of Giant Roaming Deep Sea Protist Provides New Perspective On Animal Evolution:
Excerpt: This is the first time a single-celled organism has been shown to make such animal-like traces. The finding is significant, because similar fossil grooves and furrows found from the Precambrian era, as early as 1.8 billion years ago, have always been attributed to early evolving multicellular animals. "If our giant protists were alive 600 million years ago and the track was fossilized, a paleontologist unearthing it today would without a shade of doubt attribute it to a kind of large, multicellular, bilaterally symmetrical animal," says Matz, an assistant professor of integrative biology. "We now have to rethink the fossil record."
Of related note:
Cambrian explosion still an explosion: Earlier animal embryos turn out to be amoebas - January, 2012
Excerpt: New research suggests that (570-Million-Year-Old) fossils thought to represent some of the earliest multicellular life are instead single-celled, amoeba-like organisms.
Even sponge embryos are found in the immediate pre-Cambrian strata:
Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
What they had actually proved was that Chinese phosphate is fully capable of preserving whatever animals may have lived there in Precambrian times. Because they found sponges and sponge embryos in abundance, researchers are no longer so confident that Precambrian animals were too soft or too small to be preserved. “I think this is a major mystery in paleontology,” said Chen. “Before the Cambrian, we should see a number of steps: differentiation of cells, differentiation of tissue, of dorsal and ventral, right and left. But we don’t have strong evidence for any of these.” Taiwanese biologist Li was also direct: “No evolution theory can explain these kinds of phenomena.”

Paper Lays to Rest "Vernanimalcula," Supposed Precambrian Ancestor of Bilaterian Animals - Casey Luskin - December 10, 2012
Excerpt: (Bilaterian animals are those with bilateral symmetry, symmetrical on their right and left sides, but having distinct fronts, backs, tops, and bottoms. Humans, frogs, and fish, are all bilaterians.) In a 2005 paper in Scientific American, University of Southern California paleontologist David Bottjer crowned Vernanimalcula as the "oldest fossil animal with a bilateral body plan yet discovered." Because Vernanimalcula was dated to tens of millions of years prior to the Cambrian explosion, his article used the fossil to attack the view that the Cambrian explosion was any kind of an "explosion" at all:,,,
Now, however, a new article in Evolution & Development has taken Bottjer's arguments about Vernanimalcula to pieces. The authors don't just question whether Vernanimalcula was a bilaterian ancestor -- they're not even sure it represents a fossil, period.
Titled "A merciful death for the 'earliest bilaterian,' Vernanimalcula," the article unmercifully concludes that "There is no evidential basis for interpreting Vernanimalcula as an animal, let alone a bilaterian." The scientific paper uses uncommonly strong language to refute the idea that Vernanimalcula was a bilaterian ancestor, calling that interpretation "fallacious.",,,
If that wasn't bad enough, there is now some evidence of a extremely early vertebrate:
picture - 550 million year old fossil fish - "Most major animal groups appear suddenly in the fossil record 550 million years ago, but vertebrates have been absent from this 'Big Bang' of life. Two fish-like animals from Early Cambrian rocks now fill this gap."
"Lower Cambrian Vertebrates from South China" - Nov. 1999
Three (or Four) Reasons Everyone Should Read Darwin's Doubt - Casey Luskin - April 9, 2013

Farmer's fossil find excites - October 2003
Excerpt: At 560 million years old, the fossil is around 30 million years older than the next oldest vertebrate remains found so far, in China.,,, "It's been assumed that they really only started to split off pretty much at the beginning of the Cambrian [Period, about 545 million years ago].",,, "What it actually represents, I guess, is the deepest part of the tree of life." ,, The group is collectively known as chordates,,,

Pikaia Fossils Explode the Evolutionary Paradigm - Fazale Rana - May 2012
Excerpt: Yet, in the Chengjian site—which corresponds to the beginning of the Cambrian—researchers have recovered a number of urochordate, hemichordate, cephalochordate, and agnathan specimens, all organisms that would be Pikaia’s evolutionary descendents. Instead of observing the sequential appearance of primitive chordates first, followed by more advanced chordates, the fossil record actually shows the simultaneous appearance of primitive and advanced chordates.
This following quote nicely sums up the implications of these findings:
"Without gradualness in these cases, we are back to miracle,"
Richard Dawkins - River Out Of Eden pg. 83
As well, as is often overlooked, the Ediacaran biota themselves were soft bodied, but well preserved, fossils that add even more evidence testifying to the suddenness of the Cambrian Explosion. Because to state the obvious one more time, "if there were any transitional fossils leading up to the Cambrian Explosion then they certainly should have been found":
Macroscopic life in the Palaeoproterozoic - July 2010
Excerpt: The Ediacaran fauna shows that soft-bodied animals were preserved in the Precambrian, even in coarse sandstone beds, suggesting that (the hypothetical transitional) fossils are not found because they were not there.

Response to John Wise - October 2010
"So, where then are those ancestors? Fossil preservation conditions were adequate to preserve animals such as jellyfish, corals, and sponges, as well as the Ediacaran fauna. It does not appear that scarcity is a fault of the fossil record."
Sean Carroll developmental biologist

At North Dakota State University, Presenting the Positive Case for Design – Casey Luskin – February 14, 2012
Excerpt: Indeed, Simon Conway Morris notes in his book Crucible of Creation that in the Burgess Shale fossil collections which document the Cambrian explosion, “about 95 per cent are either soft-bodied or have thin skeletons.” [p. 140].
"Are Pre-Cambrian Fossils the Solution to Darwin's Dilemma?" - podcast - January 2012
"---a number of the body plans that today characterize major taxa first appear during or 'shortly' before the interval from about 530 to 520 Ma,---."
- Valentine, James W., David Jablonski and Douglas H. Erwin. Fossils, molecules and embryos: new perspectives on the Cambrian explosion. Development 126. 1999.
The 'real work' of the beginning of the Cambrian Explosion may in actuality be as short as a two to three million year time frame (Ross: Creation as Science 2006) which is well within what is termed the 'geologic resolution time'. 'Geologic resolution time' simply means the time frame for the main part of the Cambrian Explosion apparently can't be shortened any further due to limitations of our accurately dating this ancient time period more precisely.
"The Cambrian Explosion was so short that it is below the resolution of the fossil record. It could have happened overnight. So we don't know the duration of the Cambrian Explosion. We just know that it was very, very, fast."
Jonathan Wells - Darwin's Dilemma Quote
It is amazing the level of denial that evolutionists will display when confronted with this evidence for a complete lack of transitional fossils to the Cambrian explosion, yet Dr. Wells points out that, even if we grant the most generous assumptions for time to evolutionists, we still run into insurmountable problems:
Storming the Beaches of Norman - Jonathan Wells
Excerpt: Even if the Cambrian explosion had lasted 40 million years, as Westrop had claimed, there would not have been enough time for unguided processes to produce the enormous amount of specified complexity in the DNA of the animal phyla.

On Darwin’s Birthday Big Fossil Find Deepens His Dilemma, says New York Times Bestselling Author of Darwin’s Doubt - Feb. 12, 2014
Excerpt: “Even if one were to take the most generous evolutionary estimate for the length of the Cambrian explosion, it would not allow enough time for natural selection and random mutations to do the job.” All the animals are complex at their first appearance. The first trilobite is 100% trilobite, complete with jointed appendages, eyes, and internal organs. No “pre-trilobites” or “half-trilobites” are found. The same is true for all the other animals discovered there.
And, despite what many evolutionists believe, recent discoveries are only amplifying this problem for them:
More Pow in the Cambrian Explosion - May 2010
Excerpt: Scientists have found more fossil evidence for sudden emergence of animal body plans in the Cambrian strata.

Another Phylum Found in Cambrian Explosion - January 17, 2013
Excerpt: The oldest certain fossils from phylum entoprocta are in Jurassic strata, (at) 145 million years old. ,, Now, according to Live Science, hundreds of clearly-identifiable entoprocts have been found in Cambrian strata in China, dated in the evolutionary scale at 520 million years old – three and a half times older than previously assumed.,,
According to reporter Stephanie Pappas, the fossil animals have a body plan that is “almost identical” to living species – except that the fossils were up to 8 times larger – as much as 56 mm. (and more complex)

OK, evolutionists: it’s time to face up to the fossil evidence. Here is another example of an animal phylum appearing suddenly in the oldest layers containing multicellular animals. It bursts onto the scene, fully formed, and doesn’t change its basic body plan for 520 million years! This is true of virtually all the animal phyla now. How does that fit with Darwin’s theory?

'Mother Lode' of (Cambrian Explosion) Fossils Discovered in Canada - Feb 11, 2014
Excerpt: A treasure trove of fossils chiseled out of a canyon in Canada's Kootenay National Park rivals the famous Burgess Shale,,,
The newly discovered rocks are probably about 100,000 years younger than those at the first Burgess Shale site,,, In just two weeks, the research team collected more than 3,000 fossils representing 55 species. Fifteen of these species are new to science.,,,
Many of the fossils at the new site are better preserved than their quarry counterparts, the researchers report. The new fossils reveal the internal organs of several different arthropods, the most common type of animal in both the new and old Burgess Shale locations. Retinas, corneas, neural tissue, guts and even a possible heart and liver were found.,,,
About half of the 55 species discovered at Marble Canyon so far are also found at the original Burgess Shale site,,, Some species at Marble Canyon are also found in China's Chengjiang fossil beds, which are 10 million years older than the Burgess Shale. Until now, researchers thought these Cambrian animals went extinct by the time the Burgess Shale formed. Their discovery in Canada means that many Cambrian life forms were more widespread and longer-lived than previously thought, the researchers said.

The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - 2011
Excerpt: The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes.

All skeletalised metazoan phyla appeared in the Cambrian - David Tyler - 2010
Excerpt: This means that Cambrian strata can be said to record examples of all the skeletalized metazoan phyla.,,, Subsequent periods of Earth history may have had more dramatic radiations at the Order, Class or Family level, but there were no further bauplan innovations affecting skeletalized metazoan organisms.

Insights into a largely cryptic Cambrian radiation of crustaceans
Excerpt: The scenario, then, is one of adaptation to changing environments, where organisms are affected by environmental factors (including predation). The adaptations do not result in evolutionary novelties, but to changes in size, lifestyles and ability to thrive in waters of different salinity. These changes are not surprising, given the phenomenon of phenotypic plasticity. If some want to describe this as “evolution”, then they should note that they are working with a concept that does not begin to explain the origin of branchiopods, copepods and ostracods.

More Evidence Cambrian Explosion was Un-Darwinian - January, 2012
Excerpt: It’s hard to see evolution in the picture of “early origination and subsequent conservation in crustacean form and function” these fossils illustrate, especially when the fossil copepods are larger than modern ones.

Strange Phallus-Shaped Creature Pushes Fossil Record Back 200 Million Years - Mar. 12, 2013
Excerpt: The fossils were found in an area of shale beds that are 505 million years old.
"Our description of Spartobranchus tenuis, a creature previously unknown to science, pushes the fossil record of the enteropneusts back 200 million years to the Cambrian period, fundamentally changing our understanding of biodiversity from this period.",,,
"It's astonishing how similar Spartobranchus tenuis fossils are to modern day acorn worms,,,

Fossil Finds Show Cambrian Explosion Getting More Explosive - May 2010
Excerpt: Cephalopods, which include marine mollusks like squid, octopus, and cuttlefish, are now being reported in the Cambrian explosion fossils.
The Cambrian Explosion Just Got More Explosive - August 2010 - audio

PZ Myers favorite evolutionary mascot turns around and betrays him:

Giant Squid (caught on camera): Mighty to Resist Speciation - March 26, 2013

The complexity of the life cycle, of many of the different phyla found in the Cambrian Explosion, was anything but simple:
The Enigma of Metamorphosis Is Hardly Limited to Butterflies - October 2011
Excerpt: Even more mysteriously, it appears that the most ancient phyla were metamorphic from the beginning, based on the few larval forms that have been preserved. This suggests that these Cambrian animals had not one but two or more developmental stages at the outset,,,,
Metamorphosis Is Widespread - Ann Gauger - video
From Discovering Intelligent Design: My How You've Changed - May 26, 2013
Excerpt: Holometabolism (complete metamorphosis) is the most common and complicated form of insect maturation. The diverse group that undergoes this type of process includes butterflies, moths, beetles, fleas, bees, ants, and many kinds of flies.,,,
It is exceedingly difficult to understand the origin of holometabolism in Darwinian evolutionary terms. Neither the larval nor the pupal stage is capable of reproduction -- only the adult is. In particular, the pupal stage is an all-or nothing proposition. It must complete the process and become an adult, or it will die without ever reproducing.
The liquefied organism must be completely rebuilt. For this to occur, large amounts of information -- encoding the larval body plan, the mechanisms of transformation during metamorphosis, and the adult body plan -- must exist before the larva enters this stage. An organism could not survive complete metamorphosis unless the entire process was fully programmed from the beginning. Such a large jump in complexity requires forethought and planning -- things that don't exist in Darwinian evolution. As one evolutionary entomologist acknowledges:
"... the biggest head-scratcher in evolutionary biology would have to be the origin of the holometabolous insect larva."
As far as the fossil record can tell us, insects with the ability to undergo 'complete metamorphosis' appeared abruptly with the signature complex larval stage indicative of 'complete metamorphosis' already present from the very beginning of their existence on earth:
Humble bug plugs gap in fossil record - August 2012
Excerpt: One day 370 million years ago, a tiny larva came to a sticky end when it plunged into a shrimp-infested swamp and drowned.,,
Named Strudiella devonica, the eight-millimetre invertebrate - while in far from mint condition - is thought,, to be the world's oldest complete insect fossil.
The following video gives a nice illustration of the enormous challenge involved for neo-Darwinism to ever offer a feasible explanation for metamorphosis (much less to ever give an actual demonstration).

The Miracle of Development Part 1 - Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video

It is simply not feasible for Darwinism to ever explain metamorphosis:
A Mathematician Explains the Irreducible Complexity of Metamorphosis - November 2011
Excerpt: Now we are not talking about climbing Mount Improbable, we are talking about building a bridge across an enormous chasm, between caterpillar and butterfly. ,, Until construction of this extremely long and complicated bridge is almost complete, it is a bridge to nowhere. Unless a butterfly (or another organism capable of reproduction) comes out at the end, the chrysalis only serves as a casket for the caterpillar, which cannot reproduce. Now we do not have to simply imagine uses for not-quite-watertight vacuum chamber traps, we have to imagine a selective advantage for committing suicide before you are able to reproduce, and that is a more difficult challenge!
If this abrupt appearance for all these completely different, extremely complex, and unique phyla in the Cambrian was not bad enough for materialists, the fossil record shows there was actually more variety of phyla by the end of the Cambrian explosion than there are today due to extinction.
Of Note: "Phyla are broad categories of classification. All fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals are in the same phylum. Squid, octopi, oysters, clams and snails are in another phylum. Lobsters, crayfish, insects, and millipedes are in still another."
Ray Bohlin PhD

“A simple way of putting it is that currently we have about 38 phyla of different groups of animals, but the total number of phyla discovered during the Cambrian explosion (including those in China, Canada, and elsewhere) adds up to over 50 phyla. (Actually the number 50 was first quoted as over 100 for a while, but then the consensus became 50-plus.) That means there are more phyla in the very, very beginning, where we found the first fossils, than exist now.” “Also, the animal explosion caught people's attention when the Chinese confirmed they found a genus now called Yunnanzoon that was present in the very beginning of the Cambrian explosion. This genus is considered a chordate, and the phylum Chordata includes fish, mammals and man. An evolutionist would say the ancestor of humans was present then. Looked at more objectively, you could say the most complex animal group, the chordates, were represented at the very beginning, and they did not go through a slow gradual evolution to become a chordate.”
Dr. Paul Chien PhD., chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco
I like the following article for it highlights the principle of Disparity preceding Diversity

Disparity preceding Diversity graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’
"As Whittington analyzed the Cambrian fauna at the Burgess [in the 1960s], he realized that Walcott (before 1917) had grossly underestimated the morphological disparity of this group of animals. Many of the creatures in the assemblage featured unique body designs, unique anatomical structures, or both. Opabinia, with its five eyes, fifteen distinct segments, and claw at the end of a long proboscis exemplified the unique forms on display at the Burgess. But so did Hallucigenia, Wiwaxia, Nectocaris, and many other Burgess animals. To this day, paleontologists describing Nectocaris, for example, can’t decide whether it more closely resembles an arthropod, a chordate, or a cephalopod (a class of mollusk)".
Stephen Meyer - 'Darwin's Doubt' (pp. 52–53).

Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
"In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution."
Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – video
Part 2 – video
The Ham-Nye Creation Debate: A Huge Missed Opportunity - Casey Luskin - February 4, 2014
Excerpt: "The record of the first appearance of living phyla, classes, and orders can best be described in Wright's (1) term as 'from the top down'."
(James W. Valentine, "Late Precambrian bilaterians: Grades and clades," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91: 6751-6757 (July 1994).)

In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin's Dilemma? - JonathanM - May 2012
Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe.

Jerry Coyne's Chapter on the Fossil Record Fails to Show "Why Evolution is True" - Jonathan M. - December 4, 2012
Excerpt: Taxonomists classify organisms into categories: species are the very lowest taxonomic category. Species are classified into different genera. Genera are classified into different families. Families are classified into different orders. Orders are classified into different classes. And classes are classified into different phyla. Phyla are among the very highest taxonomic categories (only kingdom and domain are higher), and correspond to the high level of morphological disparity that exists between different animal body plans. Phyla include such groupings as chordates, arthropods, mollusks, and echinoderms.
Darwin's theory would predict a cone of diversity whereby the major body-plan differences (morphological disparity) would only appear in the fossil record following numerous lower-level speciation events. What is interesting about the fossil record is that it shows the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories first (virtually all of the major skeletonized phyla appear in the Cambrian, with no obvious fossil transitional precursors, within a relatively small span of geological time). As Roger Lewin (1988) explains in Science,
"Several possible patterns exist for the establishment of higher taxa, the two most obvious of which are the bottom-up and the top-down approaches. In the first, evolutionary novelties emerge, bit by bit. The Cambrian explosion appears to conform to the second pattern, the top-down effect."
Erwin et al. (1987), in their study of marine invertebrates, similarly conclude that,
"The fossil record suggests that the major pulse of diversification of phyla occurs before that of classes, classes before that of orders, orders before that of families. The higher taxa do not seem to have diverged through an accumulation of lower taxa."
Indeed, the existence of numerous small and soft-bodied animals in the Precambrian strata undermines one of the most popular responses that these missing transitions can be accounted for by them being too small and too-soft bodied to be preserved.

"The sweep of anatomical diversity reached a maximum right after the initial diversification of multicellular animals. The later history of life proceeded by elimination not expansion."
Stephen J. Gould, Harvard, Wonderful Life, 1989, p.46
The evolutionary theory would have us believe that we should have more phyla today due to ongoing evolutionary processes. These following timeline graphs highlight the loss of phyla through time:

Origin of Phyla - The Fossil Evidence - Timeline Graph
The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011
Excerpt: The pervasive pattern of natural history: disparity precedes diversity,,,, The summary of results for phyla is as follows. The pattern reinforces earlier research that concluded the Explosion is not an artefact of sampling. Much the same finding applies to the appearance of classes. These data are presented in Figures 1 and 2 in the paper.
Disparity precedes diversity - graph

Creation and Evolution: The Biological Evidence - Dr. Marc Surtees - Disparity precedes Diversity - video (7:20 minute mark)
“Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas."
James W. Valentine - as quoted from "On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine" - video
Disparity preceding diversity is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is found after it as well. In fact, in the following paper, some Darwinists tried to argue that since Disparity preceding Diversity is a consistent pattern in the fossil record after the Cambrian Explosion then, by their reasoning, that means the Cambrian Explosion wasn’t that special after all:
Cambrian Explosion Solved? - October 2010
Excerpt: Looking at the big picture, though, they argued that the Cambrian explosion was really not all that special; other parts of the fossil record show similar patterns: “the observation that disparity reaches its peak early in a group’s history seems to reflect a general phenomenon, also observed in plants (Boyce, 2005), the Ediacara biota (Shen et al., 2008), Precambrian microfossils (Huntley et al., 2006), and within many individual animal clades, such as crinoids (Foote, 1997), gastropods (Wagner, 1995), and ungulates (Jernvall et al., 1996). Although of significant interest, this high disparity soon after a group’s appearance is not unique to the Cambrian,” they said.
Well, despite what the preceding researchers would like to believe, Disparity preceding Diversity is NOT what Darwinian Evolution predicts (But such a pattern is what ‘top down’ design predicts):
Scientific study turns understanding about evolution on its head - July 30, 2013
Excerpt: evolutionary biologists,,, looked at nearly one hundred fossil groups to test the notion that it takes groups of animals many millions of years to reach their maximum diversity of form.
Contrary to popular belief, not all animal groups continued to evolve fundamentally new morphologies through time. The majority actually achieved their greatest diversity of form (disparity) relatively early in their histories.
,,,Dr Matthew Wills said: "This pattern, known as 'early high disparity', turns the traditional V-shaped cone model of evolution on its head. What is equally surprising in our findings is that groups of animals are likely to show early-high disparity regardless of when they originated over the last half a billion years. This isn't a phenomenon particularly associated with the first radiation of animals (in the Cambrian Explosion), or periods in the immediate wake of mass extinctions.",,,
Author Martin Hughes, continued: "Our work implies that there must be constraints on the range of forms within animal groups, and that these limits are often hit relatively early on.
Co-author Dr Sylvain Gerber, added: "A key question now is what prevents groups from generating fundamentally new forms later on in their evolution.,,,

“The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

“It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

“Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.”
Ernst Mayr-Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

“What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

“In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999
Besides the fossil record, recent DNA analysis testifies against any transitional scenario between Cambrian phyla:
Darwin’s Tree of Life was uprooted in the Cambrian explosion - March 17, 2014
Excerpt: ,,,The study had sought to determine the evolutionary history of the animal phyla by analyzing fifty genes along seventeen taxa. He hoped that a single, dominant phylogenetic tree would emerge. Rokas and his team reported that “a 5-gene data matrix does not resolve relationships among most metazoan phyla” because it generated numerous conflicting phylogenies and historical signals. Their conclusion was candid: “Despite the amount of data and breadth of taxa analyzed, relationships among most metazoan phyla remained unresolved.”,,,
Sean B. Carroll went so far as to assert that “certain critical parts of the TOL [Tree of Life] may be difficult to resolve, regardless of the quantity of conventional data available.” This problem applies specifically to the relationships of many of the animal phyla, where “[m]any recent studies have reported support for many alternative conflicting phylogenies.” Investigators studying the animal tree found that “ a large fraction of single genes produce phylogenies of poor quality” such that in one case, a study “omitted 35% of single genes from their data matrix, because those genes produced phylogenies at odds with conventional wisdom”,,,
Their article brings the discussion of the Cambrian explosion full circle from an attempt to use genes to compensate for the absence of fossil evidence to the acknowledgment that genes do not convey any clear signal about the evolutionary relationships of the phyla first preserved by fossils in the Cambrian.

Steve Meyer - Darwin’s Doubt (pp. 120–21)

The new animal phylogeny: Reliability and implications:
Excerpt: "The new molecular based phylogeny has several important implications. Foremost among them is the disappearance of "intermediate" taxa between sponges, cnidarians, ctenophores, and the last common ancestor of bilaterians or "Urbilateria."...A corollary is that we have a major gap in the stem leading to the Urbilataria. We have lost the hope, so common in older evolutionary reasoning, of reconstructing the morphology of the "coelomate ancestor" through a scenario involving successive grades of increasing complexity based on the anatomy of extant "primitive" lineages."
From Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, in 2000 -
These major differences between DNA sequences of phyla also reflects what we expect from our own experience with software programming as this following video makes clear:

Granville Sewell PhD Math - Comparing The Jumps Seen In The Fossil Record To The Jumps Needed In Software Programming- video

I like this following paper for though it is materialistic in its outlook at least Dr. Eugene Koonin, unlike many materialists, is brutally honest with the 'discontinuity' of the genetic evidence we now have, though he tries to use 'non-gradualistic scenarios to explain the discontinuity away.
The Biological Big Bang model for the major transitions in evolution - Eugene V Koonin - Background:
"Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity. The relationships between major groups within an emergent new class of biological entities are hard to decipher and do not seem to fit the tree pattern that, following Darwin's original proposal, remains the dominant description of biological evolution. The cases in point include the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla. In each of these pivotal nexuses in life's history, the principal "types" seem to appear rapidly and fully equipped with the signature features of the respective new level of biological organization. No intermediate "grades" or intermediate forms between different types are detectable;
Biological Big Bangs - Origin Of Life and Cambrian - Dr. Fazale Rana - video

This following paper corroborates Koonin's observation of irreconcilable differences being found in the genetic evidence with Darwinian evolution:
Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009
Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"
I would like to point out that this, 'annihilation' of Darwin's genetic tree of life, article came out on the very day that Dr. Hillis, a self-proclaimed 'world leading expert' on the genetic tree of life, testified before the Texas State Board Of Education that the genetic tree of life overwhelmingly confirmed gradual Darwinian evolution. One could almost argue it was 'Intelligently Designed' for him to exposed as a fraud on that particular day of his testimony instead of just any other day of the year.

Here is another paper, dealing with genes, that dealt a 'death blow' to Darwinian gradualism, at its very root, for ever coherently explaining multicellular organisms:
More Questions for Evolutionists - August 2010
Excerpt: First of all, we have 65% of the gene number of humans in little old sponges—an organism that appears as far back as 635 million years ago, about as old as you can get [except for bacteria]. This kind of demolishes Darwin’s argument about what he called the pre-Silurian (pre-Cambrian). 635 mya predates both the Cambrian AND the Edicarian, which comes before the Cambrian (i.e., the pre-Cambrian) IOW, out of nowhere, 18,000 animal genes. Darwinian gradualism is dealt a death blow here (unless you’re a ‘true believer”!). Here’s a quote: “It means there was an elaborate machinery in place that already had some function. What I want to know now is what were all these genes doing prior to the advent of sponge.” (Charles Marshall, director of the University of California Museum of Paleontology in Berkeley.) I want to know, too!
Here is another article, written by a leading researcher in the world, that states the true pattern found for life, from comparative genetic evidence, is not the tree pattern Darwin had envisioned:
A New Model for Evolution: A Rhizome - Didier Raoult - May 2010
Excerpt: Thus we cannot currently identify a single common ancestor for the gene repertoire of any organism.,,, Overall, it is now thought that there are no two genes that have a similar history along the phylogenic tree.,,,Therefore the representation of the evolutionary pathway as a tree leading to a single common ancestor on the basis of the analysis of one or more genes provides an incorrect representation of the stability and hierarchy of evolution. Finally, genome analyses have revealed that a very high proportion of genes are likely to be newly created,,, and that some genes are only found in one organism (named ORFans). These genes do not belong to any phylogenic tree and represent new genetic creations.
Didier Raoult, who authored the preceding paper, has been referred to as 'Most Productive and Influential Microbiologist in France'. Here is what he had to say about Darwinism:
The "Most Productive and Influential Microbiologist in France" Is a Furious Darwin Doubter - March 2012
Excerpt: Controversial and outspoken, Raoult last year published a popular science book that flat-out declares that Darwin's theory of evolution is wrong.
Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences, here are several more comments and articles, by leading experts, on the incongruence of molecular sequences to Darwin's theory:

As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, this following article and video shows that the 'same exact genes' in different species have actually been shown to produce 'completely different' body structures:
A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4)
Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution
Neo-Darwinism's Gene Homology Problem - video

Many times evolutionists will use something called Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) to try to 'explain away' the huge discrepancies in the genetic sequences between very different species with the same exact gene, even though HGT is now found to be 'non-random';
Life is physics - Nigel Goldenfeld and Carl Woese - November 2010
Excerpt: There is also compelling evidence that not only may mutations be non-random but horizontal gene transfer too need not be random. Enterococcus faecalis, a gut dwelling bacterium, can be resistant to certain antibiotics if it contains the plasmid (an extrachromosmal loop of DNA) pCF10. This plasmid can be horizontally transferred from a donor with the plasmid to a recipient initially without it, through the process of conjugation (bacterial sex). The remarkable feature of this organism, however, is that the transfer is controlled by and initiated by signals sent from the recipient.

Common Ancestry: Wikipedia vs. the Data - October 5, 2012
Excerpt: "life might indeed have multiple origins."
(Michael Syvanen, "Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer," Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 46:339-356 (2012).)

Life Is Designed to Fight Darwinism - September 26, 2012
Excerpt: Bacteria may be simple creatures, but unlike "higher" organisms they have a neat evolutionary trick. When the going gets tough, they can simply pick up and incorporate a loose bit of genetic material from their environment. It's instant evolution, no time-consuming mutations required. This process, known as horizontal gene transfer, is an important reason why nasty bacteria like pneumococci are often able to evade immune system attacks and antibiotic drugs.
Needless to say, "evolution" without "time-consuming mutations" is not the neo-Darwinian way. By picking up existing genetic information from the environment through horizontal gene transfer, the bacteria give evidence of design for surviving storms of misfortune:

Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species - Branko Kozulić PhD. Biochemistry
Excerpt: Horizontal gene transfer is common in prokaryotes but rare in eukaryotes [89-94], so HGT cannot account for (ORFan) singletons in eukaryotic genomes, including the human genome and the genomes of other mammals.,,,
That hypothesis - that evolution strives to preserve a protein domain once it stumbles upon it contradicts the power law distribution of domains. The distribution graphs clearly show that unique domains are the most abundant of all domain groups [21, 66, 67, 70, 72, 79, 82, 86, 94, 95], contrary to their expected rarity.,,,
Evolutionary biologists of earlier generations have not anticipated [164, 165] the challenge that (ORFan) singletons pose to contemporary biologists. By discovering millions of unique genes biologists have run into brick walls similar to those hit by physicists with the discovery of quantum phenomena. The predominant viewpoint in biology has become untenable: we are witnessing a scientific revolution of unprecedented proportions.
Of Note: Branko Kozulic is on the editorial team of BioComplexity

Horizontal Gene Transfer and the Evolution of Evolution: You Can’t Make This Up - May 2010
Excerpt: Thus evolutionists went from hard evidence for bacteria sharing information for antibiotic resistance, To pure speculation that HGT occurs on a large scale between everything else on earth, just so as to have a way of explaining (a just so story) why the same exact genes are in completely unrelated animals and plants,,,
This following paper shows that, even among single celled organisms, HGT transfer actually skews any hope evolutionists would have a constructing a 'evolutionary tree' at even this base level of life, and actually points to a method of 'designed' communication with single celled organisms 'talking' to each other:

Biased gene transfer mimics patterns created through shared ancestry - 2010

As well, Horizontal Gene Transfer (HGT) actually undermines the integrity of the 'common ancestry' argument that arises from finding similar sequences in similar species:
Don’t Judge Too Quickly - Fazale Rana - September 2010
Excerpt: Researchers long thought that the insertion of transposable elements into the genome took place at random locations, but recent work, including the efforts of the UT Arlington scientists, indicate that transposon insertion events are repeatable. (Thus suggesting a underlying 'designed mechanism' for explaining why some sequences are inserted at specific locations). Many people regard shared DNA sequences as the best evidence for evolution and common descent. But, as this recent work from UT Arlington demonstrates (along with other studies), there are other mechanisms beside common ancestry that can introduce the same DNA sequences in organisms unrelated via common descent. These types of studies indicate that evolution’s best evidence may not support it at all. (Similar sequences may very well be a consequence of some other type of mechanism, like parasite-mediated Horizontal Gene Transfer, as well as the result of common design).

Common Ancestry: Wikipedia vs. the Data - Casey Luskin - October 5, 2012
Excerpt: In fact, the largest category of genes here is eukaryotic (cells with a nucleus) genes that have no homolog among prokaryotes (cells without a nucleus) -- they don't even have any possible candidate ancestors to explain where these genes came from, much less a consistent pattern of similarity pointing to one particular ancestor. All this is the opposite of "a direct correlation with common descent.",,,
,,, if two phylogenetic trees aren't congruent, the problem isn't that common descent is wrong, but rather the conflict is simply evidence of HGT.,,, Syvanen, (in "Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer," Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 46:339-356 (2012), invokes widespread HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer), but he's uncommonly honest about the data and its implications, offering the radical suggestion that "life might indeed have multiple origins.",,,
let's now look within eukaryotes.,,,
The biochemical organization of the innate immune systems of plants and animals is strikingly similar -- but this is a direct non-correlation with common descent. Thus, evolutionary scientists are forced to call them "unexpectedly similar," postulating that the similarities were "independently derived." This data is not explained by Darwinian evolution and common descent. It is explained by common design.
Somehow, something tells me not to expect any corrections over at Wikipedia.
The following article goes through a bit of the history of how neo-Darwinists have come to use horizontal gene transfer to explain (away) contradictory patterns in the genetic evidence;
Evolutionists Celebrated This Prediction But When it Later Failed They Didn’t Care - Cornelius Hunter - April 2012
Excerpt: Sometimes their use of this lateral or horizontal gene transfer mechanism is a real stretch. And in any case, their story calls for evolution to have created this incredible mechanism which then was so important for adaptation and the supposed subsequent evolution. In other words, evolution created evolution.,,, In some cases evolutionists have no idea, beyond pure speculation, about how it could have happened. As they admit in one paper: "An alternative and more plausible possibility is that the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism."

An Enzyme’s Phylogeny Reveals a Striking Case of Convergent Evolution – Jonathan M. – February 11, 2013
Excerpt: The authors attempt to account for the incongruity by positing that “the STC gene has been laterally transferred among phylogenetically diverged eukaryotes through an unknown mechanism.” They thus attribute the shared genes to horizontal gene transfer (with no offered mechanism), a proposition that has become a catch-all to explain away severe conflicts between evolutionary phylogenies.,,,
“phylogenetic conflict is common, and frequently the norm rather than the exception”
(Dávalos et al., 2012).
Is it possible that the real reason for such striking and widespread phylogenetic discordance is that evolutionary biologists are looking at biology through the wrong lens? Could the reason that there is so much difficulty in correlating organisms to a tree be that no such tree exists?
As well, many times evolutionists will scan molecular sequences using computer algorithms to find a hypothetical Tree Of Life (TOL), but this is very problematic because of the inherent bias of researchers to look solely for evidence that accords to a preconceived evolutionary conclusion whereas ignoring all sequences that disagree with their inherent bias:,,,
Pattern pluralism and the Tree of Life hypothesis - 2006
Excerpt: Hierarchical structure can always be imposed on or extracted from such data sets by algorithms designed to do so, but at its base the universal TOL rests on an unproven assumption about pattern that, given what we know about process, is unlikely to be broadly true.

A Primer on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - 2009
Excerpt: The truth is that common ancestry is merely an assumption that governs interpretation of the data, not an undeniable conclusion, and whenever data contradicts expectations of common descent, evolutionists resort to a variety of different ad hoc rationalizations to save common descent from being falsified.

Do Molecular Clocks Run at All? A Critique of Molecular Systematics - Jeffrey H. Schwartz, Bruno Maresca
Abstract: Although molecular systematists may use the terminology of cladism, claiming that the reconstruction of phylogenetic relationships is based on shared derived states (synapomorphies), the latter is not the case. Rather, molecular systematics is (largely) based on the assumption, first clearly articulated by Zuckerkandl and Pauling (1962), that degree of overall similarity reflects degree of relatedness. This assumption derives from interpreting molecular similarity (or dissimilarity) between taxa in the context of a Darwinian model of continual and gradual change. Review of the history of molecular systematics and its claims in the context of molecular biology reveals that there is no basis for the “molecular assumption.”.. For historians and philosophers of science the questions that arise are how belief in the infallibility of molecular data for reconstructing evolutionary relationships emerged, and how this belief became so central …
Also see Darwin's Doubt for a more thorough critique of molecular clocks. Here is a short review:
Review: Darwin's Doubt: - Rich Deem
Molecular Clock: Based upon the concept of a molecular clock in the genetic sequences of key genes of Cambrian ancestors, scientists have attempted to calculate the time at which these hypothetical ancestors must have evolved. Since the fossil record failed to demonstrate these pre-Cambrian ancestors, scientists had hoped to raise doubt on the brevity of the Cambrian explosion. Calculations based upon a molecular clock showed that these hypothetical ancestors must have arisen a billion or more years ago (half a billion before the Cambrian explosion). However, there isn't even a hint of multicellularity that far back, even though we can find fossil evidence of single-celled organisms as far back as 3.5 billion years ago. Molecular clocks based upon different proteins in different studies produce divergence dates that vary by more than 1 billion years. Hence, the accuracy of such studies must be questioned.
This following site purported to show 'statistically significant' support for common ancestry:
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution - Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.
Part 1: - The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree
Excerpt: Seventy-five independent studies from different researchers, on different organisms and genes, with high values of CI (P < 0.01) is an incredible confirmation with an astronomical degree of combined statistical significance (P << 10-300, Bailey and Gribskov 1998; Fisher 1990).
per Talk Origins
The following sites refute the 'statistically significant' claim:

Let the Worship Begin - Cornelius Hunter - May 2010

Eugene Koonin: The Pot Calls the Kettle Black - November 2010

Douglas Theobald's Test Of Common Ancestry Ignores Common Design - November 2010
But Isn't There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent? - Casey Luskin - December 2010
Excerpt: Dr. Theobald might have had a point, were it not for the fact that:
(1) Phylogeny and biogeography don't always agree.
(2) Phylogeny and paleontology don't always agree.
(3) Transitional fossils are often missing (or the "predicted" transitional fossils fall apart on closer inspection). (4) Hierarchical classifications often fail.
(5) "Homologous" structures often have different developmental pathways or different structures often have "homologous" developmental pathways.
(6) Morphological and molecular phylogenies are often incongruent.

Molecular Data Wreak Havoc on the Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - February 7, 2014
Excerpt: Douglas Theobald claims in his "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" that "well-determined phylogenetic trees inferred from the independent evidence of morphology and molecular sequences match with an extremely high degree of statistical significance."
In reality, however, the technical literature tells a different story. Studies of molecular homologies often fail to confirm evolutionary trees depicting the history of the animal phyla derived from studies of comparative anatomy. Instead, during the 1990s, early into the revolution in molecular genetics, many studies began to show that phylogenetic trees derived from anatomy and those derived from molecules often contradicted each other.
Stephen Meyer - Darwin's Doubt - (pp. 122-123)
,,,Moreover, when complex parts that are shared by different animals aren't distributed in a treelike pattern, that wreaks havoc on the assumption of homology that's used to build phylogenetic trees. In other words, this kind of extreme convergent evolution refutes the standard assumption that shared biological similarity (especially complex biological similarity like a brain and nervous system) implies inheritance from a common ancestor.
If brains and nervous systems evolved multiple times, this undermines the main assumptions used in constructing phylogenetic trees, calling into question the very basis for inferring common ancestry.,,,

Does Natural Selection Leave "Detectable Statistical Evidence in the Genome"? More Problems with Matzke's Critique of Darwin's Doubt - Casey Luskin August 7, 2013
Excerpt: A critical review of these statistical methods has shown that their theoretical foundation is not well established and they often give false-positive and false-negative results.
The following site gives an overview of the many problems of the statistical method that Theobald used to try to establish 'statistical significance' for common ancestry;
Scientific method: Statistical errors - P values, the 'gold standard' of statistical validity, are not as reliable as many scientists assume. - Regina Nuzzo - 12 February 2014
Excerpt: “P values are not doing their job, because they can't,” says Stephen Ziliak, an economist at Roosevelt University in Chicago, Illinois, and a frequent critic of the way statistics are used.,,,
“Change your statistical philosophy and all of a sudden different things become important,” says Steven Goodman, a physician and statistician at Stanford. “Then 'laws' handed down from God are no longer handed down from God. They're actually handed down to us by ourselves, through the methodology we adopt.”,,
One researcher suggested rechristening the methodology “statistical hypothesis inference testing”3, presumably for the acronym it would yield.,,
The irony is that when UK statistician Ronald Fisher introduced the P value in the 1920s, he did not mean it to be a definitive test. He intended it simply as an informal way to judge whether evidence was significant in the old-fashioned sense: worthy of a second look. The idea was to run an experiment, then see if the results were consistent with what random chance might produce.,,,
Neyman called some of Fisher's work mathematically “worse than useless”,,,
“The P value was never meant to be used the way it's used today,” says Goodman.,,,
The more implausible the hypothesis — telepathy, aliens, homeopathy — the greater the chance that an exciting finding is a false alarm, no matter what the P value is.,,,
“It is almost impossible to drag authors away from their p-values, and the more zeroes after the decimal point, the harder people cling to them”11,,

Taxonomic nested hierarchies don’t support Darwinism - May 14, 2013
Excerpt: In sum, the nested hierarchies in taxonomy don’t need Darwinism, in fact, Darwinism distorts the ability actually see the nested hierarchies, and finally nested hierachies based on taxonomy are evidence against Darwinism.
In spite of the crushing evidence found for the suddenness of the Cambrian explosion, and DNA analysis of different phyla and species which shows a sharp discontinuity between them, most scientists, and thus a large portion of the public, continue to imagine that all life on earth descended from a common bacterial ancestor and continues to imagine missing links with every new fossil discovery making mainstream media headlines. Yet the true story of life since the Cambrian explosion, which is actually told by the fossil record itself, tells a very different story than the imaginative tales found in mainstream media accounts.
The million-year wait for macroevolutionary bursts - July 2011
Excerpt: Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 Myr, the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time. Over longer intervals (1–360 Myr), this pattern of bounded evolution yields to a pattern of increasing divergence with time. The best-fitting model to explain this pattern is a model that combines rare but substantial bursts of phenotypic change with bounded fluctuations on shorter timescales.
Moreover, from Science Daily, we find a bit more honesty, from the authors of the preceding paper, when they state:
Not So Fast:,,,
Excerpt: The exact cause of these long-term, persistent evolutionary changes is not certain. The scientists said that climate change, in itself, does not appear to be a driving force, because many species have remained substantially unchanged over time periods when climates changed dramatically.
So beneath the mandatory evolutionary gloss of the preceding papers, we have evidence that micro-evolutionary events cannot be extrapolated to explain the origination of new body plans, and we also have a concession that, since many species remained substantially unchanged, even when climates have changed dramatically, they really have no known cause as to explain sudden ‘macro-evolutionary’ events, i.e. no mechanism to explain the sudden appearance of new body plans that they witness first hand in the fossil record.

Here is a corroborating paper:
The unscientific hegemony of uniformitarianism - David Tyler - May 2011
Excerpt: Evolution has been implicitly viewed as a uniformitarian process where the rates may vary but the underlying processes, including the types of variation, are essentially invariant through time. Recent studies demonstrate that this uniformitarian assumption is false, suggesting that the types of variation may vary through time.
As alluded to in the preceding papers, the stability of fossils (stasis) found in the fossil record is the normal pattern that is found.

Ancient Fossils That Have Not Changed For Millions Of Years - video

"LIVING" FOSSILS OF MARINE CREATURES - unchanged for millions of years - (Pictures - Including a 500 million year old starfish specimen)

THE FOSSILS IN THE CREATION MUSEUM - 1000's of pictures of ancient 'living' fossils that have not changed for millions of years:
Fossils Without Evolution - June 2010
Excerpt: New fossils continue to turn up around the world. Many of them have an amazing characteristic in common: they look almost exactly like their living counterparts, despite being millions of years old,,,

Oldest fossil shrimp preserved with muscles - November 9 2010
Excerpt: Rodney Feldmann and Carrie Schweitzer (both Kent State University) report on the oldest fossil shrimp known to date. The creature in stone is as much as 360 million years old and was found in Oklahoma. Even the muscles of the fossil are preserved.
Picture of the ancient 360 million year old fossil shrimp compared to a modern shrimp:

Rare insect fossil reveals 100 million years of evolutionary stasis - February 2011

Living Fossils Interview with Dr. Carl Werner - video

Living Fossils Refute Evolution - pictures
Punctuated Equilibrium and Patterns from the Fossil Record - Casey Luskin
Excerpt: “The Cambrian Explosion is by no means the only “explosion” in the fossil record. One evolutionist concedes that for the origin of fishes, “this is one count in the creationists’ charge that can only evoke in unison from paleontologists a plea of nolo contendere [no contest].” Plant biologists have called the origin of plants an “explosion,” saying, “the … radiation of land (plant) biotas is the terrestrial equivalent of the much-debated Cambrian ‘explosion’ of marine faunas.” Vertebrate paleontologists believe there was a mammal explosion because of the few transitional forms between major mammal groups: “There are all sorts of gaps: absence of gradationally intermediate ‘transitional’ forms between species, but also between larger groups — between, say, families of carnivores, or the orders of mammals.” Another study, “Evolutionary Explosions and the Phylogenetic Fuse,” found a bird (as well as a mammal) “Early Tertiary ‘explosion’” because many bird and mammal groups appear in a short time period lacking immediately recognizable ancestral forms. Finally, others have called the origin of our own genus Homo, “a genetic revolution” where “no australopithecine (ape) species is obviously transitional” leading one commentator to call it, like others called the Cambrian Explosion, a “big bang theory” of human evolution."
The Fossil Record and Falsifiable Predictions For ID - Casey Luskin - Audio
Terrestrial biodiversity recovered faster after Permo-Triassic extinction than previously believed - October 2011
Excerpt: While the cause of the mass extinction that occurred between the Permian and Triassic periods (250 million years ago) is still uncertain, two University of Rhode Island researchers collected data that show that terrestrial biodiversity recovered much faster than previously thought, potentially contradicting several theories for the cause of the extinction. ,,, David Fastovsky, URI professor of geosciences, and graduate student David Tarailo found that terrestrial biodiversity recovered in about 5 million years, compared to the 15- to 30-million year recovery period that earlier studies had estimated. (Of note; I believe this is very close to the 'geologic resolution time' for accurately dating these ancient time periods precisely.)
The lack of any uncontested gradual transitional forms in the fossil record, between any major groups, is overwhelmingly pervasive despite what many dogmatic evolutionists may tell you. This following site gives a very good outline of the 'discontinuous' pattern noted in the fossil record for vertebrates:
The Truth About Evolution - Transitional Fossils
Excerpt: Major adaptive radiations provide a formidable challenge to biological evolution.,,, Major adaptive radiations of groups of vertebrates are:

a) Placoderms in the early Devonian. Because they were heavily armored, jawed fish, intermediates and ancestral forms should have fossilized but none are found. No placoderms exist today.
b) Chondrichtyes during the Devonian. They are the cartilaginous fish such as sharks and rays. Intermediates and ancestors are unknown.
c) Agnatha Fish in the Silurian. These were jawless fish with bony skeletons. Intermediates and ancestors should have fossilized but none are found. Most types became extinct but hagfish and lampreys are living jawless fish.
d)Tetrapods in the early Carboniferous. These were many, diverse forms of four-legged amphibians that are believed to have evolved from fish. But no fossilized links to fish have been found and specific interrelationships of the numerous lineages is unknown.
e) Amniotes in the late Carboniferous. Amniotes are characterized by their complex reproductive system and include reptiles, birds and mammals. They are believed to have evolved from amphibians but their ancestry has not been determined from the fossil record.
f) Archosaurs in the late Permian. They were reptiles with diverse sizes and shapes that became extinct in the Triassic. Some as long as six meters have been found.
g ) Dinosaurs in the late Triassic. Dinosaurs include the largest terrestrial animals that have ever lived. Their diversity in size and shape was spectacular. Their ancestry is unknown and specific interrelationships of the numerous types is unknown.
h) Teleosts in the late Cretaceous. These are bony fish approximately 20,000 living species in 35 orders and 409 families. Interrelationships of the higher groups are unknown.
i) Therian mammals in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. These are placental and marsupial mammals. When they first appear in the fossil record, they are very diverse and interrelationships are unknown.
j) Birds in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary. There are estimates of 8900 living species in 166 families and about 27 orders. Fossil evidence is lacking for establishing the interrelationships of the orders of birds.
The following evolution friendly article was quite honest about the inadequacy of Darwinian evolution to account for novel forms appearing in the fossil record:
Saltational Evolution: Hopeful Monsters are Here to Stay - Günter Theißen - 2009
"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."
Here is a page of quotes by leading paleontologists on the true state of the fossil record:

This following video gives a very small glimpse of the utter confusion we would expect to see for life on earth if evolution were actually true:

What Would The World Look Like If Darwinism Were True - video

Here is a graph showing a partial list of fossil groups showing their sudden appearance in the fossil record- (without the artificially imposed dotted lines) - Timeline Illustration:

Cladograms, though often used by Darwinists to depict a branching tree patterns in the fossil record, turn out to be of very little relevance to the real world. David Berlinski eloquently reveals the abuse of cladistics by Darwinists in the following article:
A One Man Clade - David Berlinski July 18, 2013
Excerpt: Had Stephen Meyer better appreciated the tools of modern cladistics, Nick Matzke believes, he would not have drawn the conclusions that he did in his book Darwin’s Doubt, or argued as he had. Meyer is in this regard hardly alone. It would seem that Stephen Jay Gould was just slightly too thick to have appreciated, and the eminent paleontologist James Valentine just slightly too old to have acquired, the methods that Matzke, writing at Panda’s Thumb, is disposed to champion. Should Valentine be appointed to Matzke’s dissertation committee at UC Berkeley, we at Discovery Institute will be pleased to offer uninterrupted prayers on his behalf. We can offer no assurance of success, of course, but then again, when it comes to cladistic methods, neither can Matzke.

Two-faced Nick Matzke - July 20, 2013
Excerpt: When we build the hierarchical grouping purely on taxonomy, the groupings look sensible and elegant.
Darwinism instead distorts all this by putting mammals and birds as a subgroup of fish. Whereas an unprejudiced look at the characters suggests fish are a sister group of mammals not the parent! ,,,
Modern phylogenetic methods allow Darwinists to prejudicially synthesize a bogus statistical case that one group is ancestral to another.
The Fossil Record - Don Patton - in their own words - video

Transitional fossils? Where? - video

Here are four more pages of quotes, by leading experts, on the fossil record here:

Creation/Evolution Quotes: Fossil Record #1 - Stephen E. Jones
Genesis 1:21 & 25
So God created great sea creatures and every living thing that moves, with which the waters abounded, according to their kind, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.,,,,, each according to its kind”; and it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth according to its kind, cattle according to its kind, and everything that creeps on the earth according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Here are a few more videos, and articles, on the 'lack of gradualism' found in the fossil record:

Evolution Deception - First Life - Fossil Record - video

The Fossil Record - Fact And Fiction - Marc Surtees - video
"A major problem for Neo-Darwinism is the complete lack of evidence for plant evolution in the fossil record. As a whole, the fossil evidence of prehistoric plants is actually very good, yet no convincing transitional forms have been discovered in the abundant plant fossil record"
Jerry Bergman - The Evolution Of Plants - "A Major Problem For Darwinists" - Technical Journal - 2002 online edition

Plant Growth and Evolution - Clueless - Cornelius Hunter - February 2012
Excerpt: plants only grow in the right direction by the coordinated activity of different cell and tissue types. If one part doesn’t work, the whole thing doesn’t work. And for evolutionists, that means that each part had to evolve for some other reason and then just luckily they all worked together. It’s yet another evolutionary just-so story that isn’t motivated by the evidence, but by belief in the theory.
Oldest Fossilized Forest: Entire Fossil Forest Dating Back 385 Million Years Unearthed - March, 2012

Professor Stein states in the following video at the 4:47 minute mark;
"We are dealing with plants that are 'impossibly old', 387 million years old!"
World’s Oldest Fossilized Forest Unearthed in NY – video
Earliest fossil forests were complex - David Tyler - March 2012
Excerpt: The most significant element of this complexity is the "bifacial vascular cambium" that is found in so-called 'modern' trees today. The term refers to the way the central cambium divides to give off water conducting wood towards the inside and food conducting wood towards the outside (the inner layers of the bark). Although Aneurophylates are already known from other Devonian deposits, this is the time they have been shown to have secondary wood typical of both hardwood and softwood trees. Therefore two important features of 'modern' trees - bifacial cambium and secondary thickening - were present in the Devonian Period.

Fossils (from 52 million years ago) of Australasian tree unexpectedly found in South America - January 2014
Excerpt: The giant coniferous tree’s fossils date from 52 million years ago.,,, “Agathis is a very dramatic example of survival via huge range shifts, from the far south to the tropics, in response to climate change and land movement over millions of years,” said Wilf.

Sermonti on Stick Insects - 2006
Excerpt: The oldest phasmid fossils (they go back in Baltic amber to the Tertiary – i.e. about 50 million years ago) look identical to present-day species, showing that no gradations have occurred. It is thought that those phasmids originated from Chresmodids of the Upper Jurassic in Germany, fossils of which are encountered in deposits dating back some 150 million years. But the oldest fossils of stick or leaf insects (protophasmids) go back to even remoter periods, in the Permian (250 million years ago, in the Paleozoic). One might argue that these insects completed the process of imitating leaves at an extremely gradual rate beginning at a still earlier time. Yet things do not work out this way. Plants with flowers and leaves (phanerogams and latifoliae) appeared on earlier than the Cretaceous – in other words about 100 million years ago, long after the first protophasmids. This chronological anomaly places the imitators earlier in time than the objects of the imitation, leaving entomologists and paleontologists disconcerted.

Jurassic insect that mimicked ginkgo leaves discovered - November 28, 2012
Excerpt: Researchers working in China have discovered an insect that lived 165 million years ago that they believe used its wings to mimic the leaves of an ancient ginkgo tree. The fossil finding, the team writes in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is one of the few that shows that early insects mimicked non-flowering plants millions of years before doing so with angiosperms.

Higher levels of multiple ecosystem services are found in forests with more tree species
Excerpt: across a scale of 400,000 km2, we report,,, biomass production was approximately 50% greater with five than with one tree species. In addition, we show positive relationships between tree species richness and proxies for other biodiversity components. Importantly, no single tree species was able to promote all services, and some services were negatively correlated to each other. Management of production forests will therefore benefit from considering multiple tree species to sustain the full range of benefits that the society obtains from forests.

Carnivorous Plants - Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig, Max-Planck-Institute for Plant Breeding Research,
Excerpt: Moreover, it appears to be hard even to imagine clear-cut selective advantages for all the thousands of postulated intermediate steps in a gradual scenario, not to mention the formulation and examination of scientific (i.e. testable) hypotheses for the origin of the complex carnivorous plant structures examined above.
Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: The Origin of Carnivorous Plants, Pt. 2 - audio podcast

Geneticist W.-E. Loennig replies to Darwinist Nick Matzke on Carnivorous Plants: - September 2011

Irreducible Complexity (18 steps) of the Venus Flytrap is listed in the following article:

The Venus Flytrap, an Improbable Wonder that Baffled Darwin - Oct. 14, 2013

I like these following examples of irreducible complexity in plants since they are readily easy to see:

Wild Orchids of Israel: Seduction of the Long-horned Bee (Irreducible Complexity) - video

Hammer Orchid and Wasps - video

6 Amazing Orchids That Look Just Like Animals! January 17, 2013
Flowering Plant Big Bang:
“Flowering plants today comprise around 400,000 species,“To think that the burst that gave rise to almost all of these plants occurred in less than 5 million years is pretty amazing - especially when you consider that flowering plants as a group have been around for at least 130 million years.”
Pam Soltis, curator at the Florida Museum of Natural History.

Another Notable Explosion: Has Darwin's "Abominable Mystery," the Origin of Flowering Plants, Been Solved? - Casey Luskin - January 2, 2014
Excerpt: "Darwin famously characterized the rapid rise and early diversification of flowering plants (angiosperms) in the fossil record as an "abominable mystery."
(Well) did the researchers identify any specific, adaptive molecular changes that might help to resolve Darwin's "abominable mystery"? No, they didn't. Rather, by comparing DNA sequences in angiosperms to other plants, they found "1179 gene lineages (orthogroups) first appeared in angiosperms" and "The new gene lineages in flowering plants may have led to gene functions specific to angiosperms and crucial for their diversification and success." In other words, a lot of crucial genes for producing flowers in angiosperms don't seem to have orthologues (i.e., homologous genes) in other types of plants. This was contrary to Darwinian expectations.

Thank God for Flowers - Hugh Ross - August 2010
Excerpt: Paleontologist Kevin Boyce and climate modeler Jung-Eun Lee,,, recently discovered that flowering plants contribute much more than romance and beauty to humanity’s wellbeing. They uncovered evidence suggesting that without flowering plants, human civilization would not even be possible. Boyce and Lee found that a world without angiosperms (flowering plants) would not only be drab and uninspiring but would also be much drier and hotter and lacking in species diversity. The researchers noted that angiosperms transpire water to the atmosphere about four times more efficiently than other species of plants.
It is interesting to note that plants are far more sophisticated than many people realize:
10 Pieces of Evidence That Plants Are Smarter (More Complex) Than You Think – 2012
Excerpt: 1. Plants communicate with insects
2. Plants have memories
3. Plants create communication networks
4. Plants grow differently in response to sound
5. Plants measure time
6. Plants know up from down
7. Plants know who is family and who isn’t
8. Plants warn each other about approaching enemies
9. Plants use camouflage
10. Plants are escape artists

Plants may be able to 'hear' others - June 2012
Excerpt: Plants are known to have many of the senses we do: they can sense changes in light level, "smell" chemicals in the air and "taste" them in the soil (New Scientist, 26 September 1998, p 24). They even have a sense of touch that detects buffeting from strong winds.,,,

Biological Arithmetic: Plants Do Sums to Get Through the Night - June 24, 2013
Excerpt: In research to be published in the open access journal eLife, scientists at the John Innes Centre show that plants make precise adjustments to their rate of starch consumption. These adjustments ensure that the starch store lasts until dawn even if the night comes unexpectedly early or the size of the starch store varies.
The John Innes Centre scientists show that to adjust their starch consumption so precisely they must be performing a mathematical calculation -- arithmetic division.,,,
During the night, mechanisms inside the leaf measure the size of the starch store and estimate the length of time until dawn. Information about time comes from an internal clock, similar to our own body clock. The size of the starch store is then divided by the length of time until dawn to set the correct rate of starch consumption, so that, by dawn, around 95% of starch is used up.
"The calculations are precise so that plants prevent starvation but also make the most efficient use of their food," said Professor Smith.
Smarty Plants: Inside the World's Only Plant-Intelligence Lab

Are plants intelligent, and what can we learn from them? - vjtorley - January 8, 2014

Stefano Mancuso: The roots of plant intelligence - video
Plant Talk - Plants communicate and interact with each other, both above ground and below, in surprisingly subtle and sophisticated ways. By Dan Cossins - January 1, 2014
Excerpt: Moreover, plants can “talk” in several different ways: via airborne chemicals, soluble compounds exchanged by roots and networks of threadlike fungi, and perhaps even ultrasonic sounds. Plants, it seems, have a social life that scientists are just beginning to understand.,,,
,,,the evolutionary explanation for volatile communication among plants remains open to debate,,,(the only thing that is not open for debate is that this vast social life of plants that scientists are just beginning to understand was Intelligently Designed)
Desmodium Gyrans - The Dancing Plant - video

Mimosa Pudica - The Sensitive Plant (Touch Me Not) - video

Timelapse video of Flowers and Leaves - video
The flash recovery of ammonoids after the most massive extinction of all time - August 2009:
Excerpt: After the End-Permian extinction 252.6 million years ago, ammonoids diversified and recovered 10 to 30 times faster than previous estimates.,,, Furthermore, the duration for estimated recovery after other lesser extinctions all vary between 5 and 15 million years. The result obtained here suggests that these estimates should probably be revised downwards.
Of related interest from the insect world:

A moth’s wings feature two flies picking at a pile of bird dropping.- nov. 2013

Adventures of an adolescent Orchid Mantis (Hymenopus Coronatus) - video

Orchid Mantis - very pink, and eerie, adult female - video

Even the lowly honey bee is shown to have a capacity to communicate rudimentary information to other bees. Thus this comparison of abilities to manipulate rudimentary information is fraught with difficulties for the materialist to make his case for the evolution of our minds with:

The Language Of Bees

As a side note, here is a cool video showing some of the amazing design of a Honey Bee:

Evolution vs. The Honey Bee - an Architectural Marvel - video
Excerpt: The scrapings are caught in a comb with nine rows of bristle. The bee doubles up its legs. A huge rake passes through the rows of bristles, pulling the pollen into a press made by the knee joint. When the bee bends its knee, the jaws of the press open; when it straightens its leg, the jaws close, and the pollen is pressed and pushed up into the pollen basket. The pollen basket is a shallow trough in the middle of the hind leg, located just where it widens like the blade of a paddle. To hold the load securely in place, there are many curving hairs around the edges. They serve to hold the bee’s bulging load of pollen securely in place.,,,
Freight planes carry a payload of about 25 percent of their weight. A bee can carry almost 100 per cent.

TEDx Video: Flight of the Fruit Fly - October 8, 2013
Excerpt: "Dickinson is a very intense guy himself, and gives a remarkable discussion of what makes the engineering that goes into fruit fly flight so amazing." (4:50 minute mark of video lists several fascinating high tech 'accessories' of the fruit fly)
Beyond Black and Yellow: The Stunning Colors of America’s Native Bees - beautiful pictures
Finding: Bees Solve The Traveling Salesman Problem - October 2010
Excerpt: It is a classic problem in the field of computer science: In what order should a salesman visit his prospects? The traveling salesman problem may appear simple but it has engaged some of the greatest mathematical minds and today engages some of the fastest computers. This makes new findings, that bees routinely solve the problem before pollinating flowers, all the more remarkable.

Bumblebees Find and Distinguish Electric Signals from Flowers - Feb. 21, 2013
Excerpt: The research shows for the first time that pollinators such as bumblebees are able to find and distinguish electric signals given out by flowers. Flowers often produce bright colours, patterns and enticing fragrances to attract their pollinators.,,
,, flowers also have their equivalent of a neon sign -- patterns of electrical signals that can communicate information to the insect pollinator. These electrical signals can work in concert with the flower's other attractive signals and enhance floral advertising power.
Plants are usually charged negatively and emit weak electric fields. On their side, bees acquire a positive charge as they fly through the air. No spark is produced as a charged bee approaches a charged flower, but a small electric force builds up that can potentially convey information.
By placing electrodes in the stems of petunias, the researchers showed that when a bee lands, the flower's potential changes and remains so for several minutes. Could this be a way by which flowers tell bees another bee has recently been visiting? To their surprise, the researchers discovered that bumblebees can detect and distinguish between different floral electric fields.
Also, the researchers found that when bees were given a learning test, they were faster at learning the difference between two colours when electric signals were also available.

Research Discovers Oldest Bee - Oct. 26, 2006
Excerpt: Researchers at Oregon State University have discovered the oldest bee ever known, a 100 million year old specimen preserved in almost lifelike form in amber,,,
The earliest angiosperms (flowering plants) didn't really begin to spread rapidly until a little over 100 millions years ago, a time that appears to correspond with the (appearance) of bees,,.

Ants follow Fermat's principle of least time - April 1, 2013
Excerpt: Ants have long been known to choose the shortest of several routes to a food source, but what happens when the shortest route is not the fastest? This situation can occur, for example, when ants are forced to travel on two different surfaces, where they can walk faster on one surface than on the other. In a new study, scientists have found that ants behave the same way as light does when traveling through different media: both paths obey Fermat's principle of least time, taking the fastest route rather than the most direct one.

Look at This Incredible Insect Wing Design - Cornelius Hunter - May 17, 2013
Excerpt: And so using this rational, mathematical, approach to biology the researchers were able to do something that consistently eludes evolutionists—produce a successful prediction:
"An optimal cell size of a grid-like structure such as the wing can be predicted using the “critical crack length” of the membrane, which is determined by the material’s fracture toughness and the stress applied. … An “optimal” wing cell should have a diameter of around 1132 µm. Is this the case in locust wings? Our results show that the distribution of the wing cell size in locust wings corresponds very well to this prediction, with the most common wing-cell “class” being between 1000 and 1100 µm."

Fruit fly with the wings of beauty - July 2012
Excerpt: But a closer examination of the transparent wings of Goniurellia tridens reveals a piece of evolutionary(?) art. Each wing carries a precisely detailed image of an ant-like insect, complete with six legs, two antennae, a head, thorax and tapered abdomen.

This Insect Has The Only Mechanical Gears Ever Found in Nature - September 12, 2013
Caption below photo: The small hopping insect Issus coleoptratus uses toothed gears (magnified above with an electron microscope) to precisely synchronize the kicks of its hind legs as it jumps forward.

Mechanical Gears Discovered on Planthopper Insects Provide an Opportunity to Recognize, or Deny, Design - Casey Luskin - September 18, 2013
Excerpt: So are these gears the only ones in known in nature? It turns out there are other examples, as paper in Science explains:
"Elsewhere in the animal kingdom, apparently ornamental cogs occur on the shell of the cog wheel turtle Heosemys spinosa and on the pronotum of the wheel bug Arilus cristatus (Hemiptera, Reduviidae). The hearts of crocodilians have a cogwheel valve that closes during each heartbeat and can increase the resistance in the pulmonary outflow. In some insects, a row of regularly spaced protrusions work like clockwork escapement mechanisms to produce sound. In such stridulation mechanisms, a plectrum is moved across the row of teeth at a rate of 2500 to 5000 teeth per second, whereas the similarly sized gear teeth of Issus spin past each other at almost 50,000 teeth per second. Despite working under very different mechanical conditions, the similar tooth morphologies of the two structures suggest constraints that enforce a particular geometry."
Giving evolution the gears - Ian Juby - video

Fig wasp and Fig fruit - video

The story of fig tree pollination is a testimony to Intelligent Design. Since the flowers of a fig tree are inside the fruit, they need the fig wasp to do the pollinating. The female wasp tunnels into the urnlike fruit of one kind of fig through a small hole in the top to lay her eggs in the flowers. The wingless male wasp hatch first and then mates with the female while she is still incubating in her flower. The male soon dies inside the fruit, and never leaves the inside of the fruit. The winged female wasps hatch. As the female wasps leave the fruit through the same tiny opening in the fruit, they pick up pollen that they carry to a second kind of fig. This is the one that will produce seeds for new trees and delicious fruit.


The supposed 'evidence' for the evolution of fish to land dwelling creatures is not even close to the conclusive evidence evolutionists pretend that it is:
Tiktaalik- Out Of Order
Excerpt: One of the problems with an evolutionary interpretation of the fishapods is that these creatures appear to be out of order.

Tiktaalik Blown "Out of the Water" by Earlier Tetrapod Fossil Footprints - January 2010
Excerpt: The tracks predate the oldest tetrapod skeletal remains by 18 Myr and, more surprisingly, the earliest elpistostegalian fishes by about 10 Myr.

Attenborough, read your mail: Evolution is messier than TV - February 2014 - with video
Excerpt: The Polish trackways establish that Tiktaalik wasn’t anywhere near the first tetrapod, so the most important information about the transition to land doesn’t even include Tiktaalik at present.,,,
Some fish today routinely spend time out of the water, using a variety of mechanisms. But there is no particular reason to believe that they are on their way to becoming full time tetrapods or land dwellers. So we would need to be cautious about assuming that specific mechanisms that might be useful on land are definitive evidence of a definite, permanent move to full-time land dwelling.
A friend writes to point out a modern-day examples that illustrates this, the walking shark:

Three-dimensional limb joint mobility in the early tetrapod Ichthyostega : Published online 23 May 2012 - video with article
Excerpt: The origin of tetrapods and the transition from swimming to walking was a pivotal step in the evolution and diversification of terrestrial vertebrates.,,, We conclude that early tetrapods with the skeletal morphology and limb mobility of Ichthyostega were unlikely to have made some of the recently described Middle Devonian trackways.
New Research Debunks Theory of Prehistoric Tetrapod's Walk - May 2012 - video

This video specifically focuses in on the complexity of the supposedly 'primitive' forelimb:

Forelimb maximal joint ranges of motion in Ichthyostega, an Early Tetrapod - video

This following article has a excellent summary of the 'less than forthright' manner in which Darwinists handle anyone who dares to tell of falsifications to their paltry evidence for 'transitional' fossils:

Evolutionary Biologists Are Unaware of Their Own Arguments: Reappraising Nature's Prized "Gem," Tiktaalik - Casey Luskin - September 2010
Romer's Gap fossils have not provided transitional forms (for hypothetical fish to land animal) - David Tyler - March 2012
Excerpt: All the fossil evidence shows discontinuity, but evolutionary linkages are marked (all located within Romer's Gap) that are devoid of supporting data. We are still a long way from a science that majors "on the presence, rather than the absence, of fossil data".
As well, there is no evidence that dinosaurs or fish ever 'evolved' from, or to, anything:

Fish & Dinosaur Evolution vs. The Actual Fossil Evidence - video and notes

Fish phylogeny is certainly uncooperative with Darwinian expectations:
Researchers: Tuna closer to seahorse than to marlin - July 18, 2013
Excerpt: The tree shows some interesting relationships. For example, tuna are more closely related to seahorses than to swordfish or barracuda. The oddly shaped pufferfishes are related to anglerfish, the only fishes whose bodies are wider than they are deep.
Cichlids, a family that includes about 2,000 species of freshwater fish known for brooding their young in their mouths and a favorite for studies of evolution, are related to the engineer gobies, an obscure family of just two species that live on coral reefs and raise their young in a nest.
Wainwright’s special interest is in the evolution of fish jaws. Fish have two sets of jawbones, an outer jaw and “pharyngeal jaws” in the throat that adapted to different functions. In some fish, the lower pharyngeal jaw is fused into a single solid bone that can be used to crush prey such as shellfish.
Biologists had assumed that this fused jaw had evolved once and then spread into different groups of fish. Instead, the new tree shows that this structure evolved at least six times in different groups of fish.

From flounders to seahorses: Evolutionary success of spiny-rayed fishes detailed - July 17, 2013
Excerpt: The findings published the week of July 15 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences show surprisingly close evolutionary relationships between lineages of fish species such as tunas and seahorses,,,
In classifying fishes, scientists used to put tunas and the swordfish in the same taxonomic group or 'bucket'," said Thomas Near, associate professor of ecology and evolutionary biology and lead author of the paper. "This new molecular work allows us to refine our buckets and shows, for instance, that swordfish are actually more closely related to flounders and other flatfishes than to tunas."
Its certainly not the molecular work that allowed them to 'refine our buckets'.
Picture - The coelacanth, a 400-million-year-old fish, represents an impasse for the theory of evolution. This fish has not undergone any changes in 400 million years. The fact that it has preserved its earliest physiological structures over this length of time—despite continental shifts, climate changes and changes in environmental conditions—baffles evolutionists.,,,

(Living Fossil) Coelacanth Fish Genome Undermines Evolution Industry - April 23rd, 2013
Excerpt: Rather than finding genetic “slight, successive” changes through natural selection as advocated by Charles Darwin in The Origin of Species, the evidence points to genetic stasis and to the mosaic uniqueness of the coelacanth,,,
The discovery that coelacanth reproduction, unlike most fish, amphibians and reptiles, is through live-births and not through the fertilization of external, eggs further stymied efforts to align the scientific evidence to the standard theory of evolution through “slight, successive” changes.
Equally challenging for the evolution industry was the soft anatomy of the internal organs. In 1974, paleoichthyologist Barbara Stahl concluded in Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, “The modern coelacanth shows no evidence of having internal organs preadapted for use in a terrestrial environment.”,,

Flying Fish in the Darwin Magic Show - November 6, 2012
Excerpt: The BBC News reports the discovery of an "exceptionally preserved" fossil of a flying fish in Middle Triassic strata from China, dated 235-242 million years ago. Nothing in the data or pictures would lead an impartial observer to conclude unguided Darwinian evolution produced this fish. The artist reconstruction shows a beautifully adapted fish with fins outstretched to glide over the water, as modern flying fish do.

Darwin vs. the Fossils
Excerpt: “Over 30 million dinosaur bones and parts, some in excellent states of preservation, have been identified, and although much speculation exists, not a single documented plausible direct ancestor has yet been located,” “All known dinosaurs appear fully formed in the fossil record.” - Dr. Jerry Bergman

Oldest Evidence of Dinosaurs in Footprints: Dinosaur Lineage Emerged Soon After Massive Permian Extinction – October 2010
Excerpt: The oldest evidence of the dinosaur lineage — fossilized tracks — is described in Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Just one or two million years after the massive Permian-Triassic extinction,,,, This fossilized trackway places the very closest relatives of dinosaurs on Earth about 250 million years ago — 5 to 9 million years earlier than previously described fossilized skeletal material has indicated,,, “We see the closest dinosaur cousins immediately after the worst mass extinction,”,,,
The Unknown Origin of Pterosaurs - video

Here is tentative evidence for Genetic Entropy in Dinosaurs;
Were dinosaurs undergoing long-term decline before mass extinction? - May 1, 2012
Excerpt: The researchers found that hadrosaurs and ceratopsids, two groups of large-bodied, bulk-feeding herbivores—animals that did not feed selectively—may have experienced a decline in biodiversity in the 12 million years before the dinosaurs ultimately went extinct.,,, "Contrary to how things are often perceived, the Late Cretaceous wasn't a static 'lost world' that was violently interrupted by an asteroid impact. Some dinosaurs were undergoing dramatic changes during this time, and the large herbivores seem to have been mired in a long-term decline, at least in North America."
As well, there is no evidence for another favorite evolutionary myth that says birds evolved from dinosaurs, as these videos and articles, in this following link, clearly point out:

No Evidence For Birds Evolving From Anything

Bird Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence - video and notes
Darwin’s Legacy - Donald R. Prothero - February 2012
Excerpt: In four of the biggest climatic-vegetational events of the last 50 million years, the mammals and birds show no noticeable change in response to changing climates. No matter how many presentations I give where I show these data, no one (including myself) has a good explanation yet for such widespread stasis despite the obvious selective pressures of changing climate.
One would think the stunning lack of gradualism between any phyla, or major species, in the fossil record, noted by leading paleontologists in the world no less, would falsify the evolutionary hypothesis, yet evolution has steadfastly resisted falsification by this method. The following article clearly points out how evolutionists are able to avoid falsification by the crushing lack of evidence for gradualism between phyla, and major species, found in the fossil record:
Seeing Ghosts in the Bushes (Part 2): How Is Common Descent Tested? - Paul Nelson - Feb. 2010
Excerpt: Fig. 6. Multiple possible ad hoc or auxiliary hypotheses are available to explain lack of congruence between the fossil record and cladistic predictions. These may be employed singly or in combination. Common descent (CD) is thus protected from observational challenge.
This following article reveals how evolutionists avoid falsification from the biogeographical data of finding numerous and highly similar species in widely separated locations:

More Biogeographical Conundrums for Neo-Darwinism - March 2010
The Case of the Mysterious Hoatzin: Biogeography Fails Neo-Darwinism Again - Casey Luskin - November 5, 2011
Excerpt: If two similar species separated by thousands of kilometers across oceans cannot challenge common descent, what biogeographical data can? The way evolutionists treat it, there is virtually no biogeographical data that can challenge common descent even in principle. If that's the case, then how can biogeography be said to support common descent in the first place?
One of the favorite methods of evolutionists to avoid falsification from the fossil record is to invoke 'Punctuated Equilibrium'. In the Punctuated Equilibrium model, the reason given by evolutionists for why we do not find transitional species in the fossil record is because small populations become isolated from the main population and undergo 'rapid evolution' in which they are suppose to change into other species in a geological blink of an eye so as to not leave traces of their evolution in the fossil record. Regardless of the evolutionists 'story', this following study shows that the 'rapid evolution' mechanism of punctuated equilibrium is not enhanced by isolation:
Fantasy Island: Evolutionary Weirdness Does Not Favor Islands - July 2010
Excerpt: “We concluded that the evolution of body sizes is as random with respect to ‘isolation’ as on the rest of the planet,” he said. “This means that you can expect to find the same sort of patterns on islands and on the mainland.”

Amazing Insects Defy Evolution – October 2010
Excerpt: India spent tens of millions of years as an island before colliding with Asia. Yet the fossil record contains no evidence that unique species evolved on the subcontinent during this time,
During 165 million years of evolution Darwinian processes accomplished the amazing feat of evolving small fleas from big fleas:
Early Cretaceous flea found to “fill the transitional gap.” - July 15, 2013
Excerpt: Last year the discovery of fossilized giant fleas in Chinese formations conventionally dated at 165 million years revealed that, while giant fleas had some variations distinguishing them from modern fleas, they were still fleas. However, there remained in this scenario “a considerable gap”1 between the evolutionary ancestors of modern fleas and today’s fleas that torment animals and people. The recent discovery of medium-sized fleas in China’s Yixian Formation (conventionally dated 125 million years) supposedly fills in the “early evolutionary history” of the flea.,,
Some modern fleas are larger than the more recently found Saurophthyrus specimens, and some Pseudopulicidae specimens were substantially smaller than the two-centimeter giants found with them,,, the largest fossil fleas are nearly twice the size of the largest modern flea (about four fifths of an inch.) ,,,

Allopatric Speciation Tested in Martinique Cornelius Hunter - February 2012
Excerpt: In spite of evolutionary expectations the different lizard populations, which had been separated for six to eight millions years, had no difficulty interbreeding as one species. The so-called allopatric speciation never happened. Undaunted as ever, evolutionist now call for “ecological speciation,” which didn’t occur either but it has the virtue that it can’t be falsified.
Fauna on mountaintops isolated for tens of millions of years were found to defy evolutionary expectations (In evolutionary theory, a dog-like cow can become a whale in less time than that):
Brazil’s Islands in the Sky Defy Evolution - August 2012
Excerpt: “analyses of two mitochondrial gene fragments evolving at different rates,” they were very surprised: “populations of a given species on individual summits are often closely related to those on other summits (e.g., Oreophrynella), or to those from the surrounding uplands (e.g., Tepuihyla).” Many of the differences were less than 1%. “Uncorrected pairwise distances in both genes indicate unexpectedly low genetic divergence — as low as zero — among multiple tepui summit species or populations in five of the six groups (Stefania being the only exception), as well as among some summit species or populations and uplands populations described as distinct species.”
Evolutionary Stasis (Of The Fossil Record) — Double-speak and Propaganda - video!

Besides the fossil record lacking transitional forms, there is actually ample evidence in the fossil record to infer that the principle of Genetic Entropy has been rigidly obeyed over the course of the history of life on this earth. The following article, which I've listed previously, is important in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed in the fossil record by Trilobites, over the 270 million year history of their life on earth (Note: Trilobites are one of the most prolific 'kinds' found in the fossil record with an extensive worldwide distribution. They appeared abruptly at the base of the Cambrian explosion with no evidence of transmutation from the 'simple' creatures that preceded them, nor is there any evidence they ever produced anything else besides other trilobites during the entire time they are found in the fossil record).
The Cambrian's Many Forms
Excerpt: "It appears that organisms displayed “rampant” within-species variation “in the ‘warm afterglow’ of the Cambrian explosion,” Hughes said, but not later. “No one has shown this convincingly before, and that’s why this is so important.""From an evolutionary perspective, the more variable a species is, the more raw material natural selection has to operate on,"....(Yet Surprisingly)...."There's hardly any variation in the post-Cambrian," he said. "Even the presence or absence or the kind of ornamentation on the head shield varies within these Cambrian trilobites and doesn't vary in the post-Cambrian trilobites." University of Chicago paleontologist Mark Webster; article on the "surprising and unexplained" loss of variation and diversity for trilobites over the 270 million year time span that trilobites were found in the fossil record, prior to their total extinction from the fossil record about 250 million years ago.
Evolution vs. The Trilobite Eye - Prof. Andy McIntosh - video

The Optimal Engineering Of The Trilobite Eye - Dr. Don Johnson
Putting flesh on the bones of ancient fish: Synchrotron X-rays reconstruct soft tissue on 380 million year old fish - May 13, 2013
Excerpt: Swedish, Australian and French researchers present for the first time miraculously preserved musculature of 380 million year old armoured fish discovered in north-west Australia.,,,
"High contrast X-ray images were produced thanks to a powerful beam and a protocol developed for fossil imaging at the ESRF. This is unique in the world and has enabled us to "reconstruct" some fossilised muscles and document the muscles of neck and abdomen in these early jawed fish, without damaging or affecting the fossilised remains",,,
These early vertebrates prove to have a well-developed neck musculature as well as powerful abdominal muscles – not unlike some human equivalents displayed on the beaches of the world every summer. Living fish, by contrast, usually have a rather simple body musculature without such specialisations.
"This shows that vertebrates developed a sophisticated musculature much earlier than we had thought" says Per Ahlberg, co-author of the project. "It also cautions against thinking that we can interpret fossil organisms simply by metaphorically draping their skeletons in the soft tissues of living relatives."
Moreover, it has been found that a change in environment leads to extinction of species and not to the origination of new species as Darwinists presuppose:
New Species, Darwin Wrong Again - June 28, 2013
Excerpt: By examining the fossil records of 19 Cenozoic terrestrial mammal clades, Quental and Marshall discovered extinction rates exceeding the formation rates of new species. Fossil record evidence demonstrates that the rate of extinction far exceeds the formation of new species.
“We find their diversity loss was not just a consequence of ‘gamblers ruin,’” the investigators reported, “but due to the evolutionary loss to the Red Queen, a failure to keep pace with a deteriorating environment.”
The Red Queen hypothesis named after Lewis Carroll’s character who, in the 1871 book “Through the looking glass,” said her country was a place where “it takes all the running you can do, to keep the same place.”
“In biology, this means that animals and plants don’t just disappear because of bad luck in a static and unchanging environment, like a gambler losing it all to a run of bad luck at the slot machines,” explained Robert Sanders, science writer for University of California, Berkeley in the ScienceDaily article entitled “The Red Queen was right: life must continually evolve to avoid extinction.”
“Instead, they face constant change,” Sanders continues, “a deteriorating environment and more successful competitors and predators — that requires them to continually adapt and evolve new species just to survive.” All is well, except that the investigators found that extinction was the rule. The investigators found no evidence for the emergence of any new species.
These fossil record findings undermine Darwin’s theory that changing environments are a driving force of evolution:
“under changing conditions of life, there is no logical impossibility in the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection through natural selection.”
Rather than acquiring “any degree of perfection” in the wake of environmental changes, the effect increased the rate of extinction, not speciation.
In the article entitled “Scientists examine historical loss of diversification of species leading to extinction” published in in Nature World News, Marshal note that “virtually no biologists thinks about the failure to originate as being a major factor in the long term causes of extinction. But we found that a decrease in the origin of new species is just as important as increased extinction rate in driving mammals to extinction.”
When species are challenged by changing environments, rather than adapting, the pendulum swings in favor of destruction−extinction rather than “the acquirement of any conceivable degree of perfection.” Darwin’s natural selection pendulum favors extinction, not the formation of new species.
In fact, the loss of morphological traits over time, for all organisms found in the fossil record, was/is so consistent that it was made into a 'scientific law':
Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes:
Excerpt: "As the history of animal life was traced in the fossil record during the 19th century, it was observed that once an anatomical feature was lost in the course of evolution it never staged a return. This observation became canonized as Dollo's law, after its propounder, and is taken as a general statement that evolution is irreversible."
A general rule of thumb for the 'Deterioration/Genetic Entropy' of Dollo's Law as it applies to the fossil record is found here:
Dollo's law and the death and resurrection of genes
ABSTRACT: Dollo's law, the concept that evolution is not substantively reversible, implies that the degradation of genetic information is sufficiently fast that genes or developmental pathways released from selective pressure will rapidly become nonfunctional. Using empirical data to assess the rate of loss of coding information in genes for proteins with varying degrees of tolerance to mutational change, we show that, in fact, there is a significant probability over evolutionary time scales of 0.5-6 million years for successful reactivation of silenced genes or "lost" developmental programs. Conversely, the reactivation of long (>10 million years)-unexpressed genes and dormant developmental pathways is not possible unless function is maintained by other selective constraints;

No Positive Selection, No Darwin: A New Non-Darwinian Mechanism for the Origin of Adaptive Phenotypes - November 2011
Excerpt: Hughes now proposes a model he refers to as the plasticity-relaxation-mutation (PRM) model. PRM suggests that adaptive phenotypes arise as follows: (1) there exists a phenotypically plastic trait (i.e., one that changes with the environment, such as sweating in the summer heat); (2) the environment becomes constant, such that the trait assumes only one of its states for a lengthened period of time; and (3) during that time, deleterious mutations accumulate in the unused state of the trait, such that its genetic basis is subsequently lost.
,,, But if most adaptations result from the loss of genetic specifications, how did the traits initially arise? One letter (Chevin & Beckerman 2011) of response to Hughes noted that the PRM "does not explain why the ancestral state should be phenotypically plastic, or why this plasticity should be adaptive in the first place."

A. L. Hughes's New Non-Darwinian Mechanism of Adaption Was Discovered and Published in Detail by an ID Geneticist 25 Years Ago - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - December 2011
Excerpt: The original species had a greater genetic potential to adapt to all possible environments. In the course of time this broad capacity for adaptation has been steadily reduced in the respective habitats by the accumulation of slightly deleterious alleles (as well as total losses of genetic functions redundant for a habitat), with the exception, of course, of that part which was necessary for coping with a species' particular environment....By mutative reduction of the genetic potential, modifications became "heritable". -- As strange as it may at first sound, however, this has nothing to do with the inheritance of acquired characteristics. For the characteristics were not acquired evolutionarily, but existed from the very beginning due to the greater adaptability. In many species only the genetic functions necessary for coping with the corresponding environment have been preserved from this adaptability potential. The "remainder" has been lost by mutations (accumulation of slightly disadvantageous alleles) -- in the formation of secondary species.

Reappraising speciation in fossil gastropods - February 5, 2013 - David Tyler
Excerpt: The morphologies (investigated during a geological interval of c. 1.6 Ma) can be described as examples of micro-evolutionary change. The Melanopsis gastropods are all members of the same genus. Whilst morphologies change, there are no evolutionary novelties. Indeed, there is no evidence here for anything more than multiple phenotypes emerging from the same genotype. The situation fits well with the concept of phenotypic plasticity,,,

Cambrian Explosion: The Case of Mollusks - November 12, 2013
Conclusions: Here we have seen Darwinian evolutionists admitting that mollusks date to the Cambrian explosion. They went looking for evidence of subsequent evolution. Strata under a lakebed in Africa showed simple changes in size, but no “upward” evolution in complexity. Fossils of plated and unplated chitons showed that ancestral forms were more complex than living forms, and larval forms more complex than the adults. Neither case provides empirical evidence that unguided, blind processes of evolution are capable of generating complex specified information. The conclusions that Stephen Meyer draws in Darwin’s Doubt continue, then, to be supported by new evidence. Mollusks are but one phylum of nearly twenty whose abrupt appearance complete with complex tissues, organs and hierarchical structures defy Darwinian mechanisms.

Evolutionists Are Losing Ground Badly: Both Pattern and Process Contradict the Aging Theory – Cornelius Hunter - July 2012
Excerpt: Contradictory patterns in biology include the abrupt appearance of so many forms and the diversity explosions followed by a winnowing of diversity in the fossil record. It looks more like the inverse of an evolutionary tree with bursts of new species which then die off over time.
Dollo's Law was further verified to the molecular level here:
Dollo’s law, the symmetry of time, and the edge of evolution - Michael Behe
Excerpt: We predict that future investigations, like ours, will support a molecular version of Dollo's law:,,, Dr. Behe comments on the finding of the study, "The old, organismal, time-asymmetric Dollo’s law supposedly blocked off just the past to Darwinian processes, for arbitrary reasons. A Dollo’s law in the molecular sense of Bridgham et al (2009), however, is time-symmetric. A time-symmetric law will substantially block both the past and the future.

Evolutionary Adaptations Can Be Reversed, but Rarely - May 2011
Excerpt: They found that a very small percentage of evolutionary adaptations in a drug-resistance gene can be reversed, but only if the adaptations involve fewer than four discrete genetic mutations. (If reverting to a previous function, which is advantageous, is so constrained, what does this say about gaining a completely novel function, which may be advantageous, which requires many more mutations?)
Some Further Research On Dollo's Law - Wolf-Ekkehard Lonnig - November 2010

Further facts that conform to the principle of genetic entropy:
"According to a ‘law’ formulated by E. D. Cope in 1871, the body size of organisms in a peculiar evolutionary lineage tends to increase. But Cope’s rule has failed the most comprehensive test applied to it yet."(body sizes tend to get smaller rather than larger)
Stephen Gould, Harvard, Nature, V.385, 1/16/97

"Also that mammalian life was richer in kinds, of larger sizes, and had a more abundant expression in the Pliocene than in later times."
Von Engeln & Caster Geology, p.19

"Alexander Kaiser, Ph.D., of Midwestern University’s Department of Physiology,,, was the lead author in a recent study to help determine why insects, once dramatically larger than they are today, have seen such a remarkable reduction in size over the course of history."
Science Daily, 8/8/07

Rare Insect Fossil Reveals 100 Million Years of Evolutionary Stasis - February 2011
Excerpt: "Schizodactylidae, or splay-footed crickets, are an unusual group of large, fearsome-looking predatory insects related to the true crickets, katydids and grasshoppers, in the order Orthoptera,",,, Although the fossil is distinct from today's splay-footed crickets, its general features differ very little, Heads said, revealing that the genus has been in a period of "evolutionary stasis" for at least the last 100 million years.

Giants among us: Paper explores evolution of the world’s largest mammals
Excerpt: The researchers found that the pattern was indeed consistent, not only globally but across time and across trophic groups and lineages—that is, animals with differing diets and descended from different ancestors—as well.
What is conspicuously missing in the preceding paper is any mention of the gross lack of transitional fossils between ‘kinds of mammalian species’. What is very interesting in what they do mention, is the strong emphasis they put on the consistency of larger fossils first, smaller fossils later. This finding clearly is not something that ‘random’ Darwinian evolution would predict, but is clearly something that lines up very well with the Dembski/Marks's Law of Conservation of Information, as well as with the principle of Genetic Entropy.

Don Patton - Entropy, Information, and The 'Deteriorating' Fossil Record - video (Notes on giant fossils in description)
Argentine experts find giant penguin fossils in Antarctica - November 21, 2012
Excerpt: Argentine experts have discovered the fossils of a two-meter (6.5 foot) tall penguin that lived in Antarctica 34 million years ago.
This following tidbit of Genetic Entropy evidence came to me from a person named Rude on the Uncommon Descent blog:
At one of the few petrified forests that sports ginkgo wood, I was told by the naturalist that ginkgos are old in the fossil record—they date from the Permian back when trees were first “invented”. She said that there are many species of fossilized Ginkgoaceae, but Ginkgo biloba, is the only living species left. - Rude - Uncommon Descent

Jurassic insect that mimicked ginkgo leaves discovered - November 28, 2012
Excerpt: Researchers working in China have discovered an insect that lived 165 million years ago that they believe used its wings to mimic the leaves of an ancient ginkgo tree. The fossil finding, the team writes in their paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, is one of the few that shows that early insects mimicked non-flowering plants millions of years before doing so with angiosperms.
The following site points out that there is a fairly constant, and unexplained, 'background extinction rate'. My expectation for extinctions, at least for the majority of extinctions not brought about by catastrophes, is for the fairly constant rate of 'background extinctions' to be attributable directly to Genetic Entropy:
The Current Mass Extinction
Excerpt: The background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone. The typical rate of extinction differs for different groups of organisms. Mammals, for instance, have an average species “lifespan” from origination to extinction of about 1 million years, although some species persist for as long as 10 million years.

Psalm 104: 29-30
You hide Your face, they are dismayed; You take away their spirit, they expire And return to their dust. You send forth Your Spirit, they are created; And You renew the face of the ground.
Of related note: The number of extinctions may be greatly overestimated on the preceding site:
"Instead of 33 mammals and 80 birds going extinct on the continents per decade, in the last 500 years on the great continental landmasses of the world, we’ve only seen three mammals and six birds go extinct. Only nine continental mammal and bird species are known to have gone extinct in 500 years."
- Willis Eschenbach
One persistent misrepresentation, that evolutionists continually portray of the fossil record, is that +99.9% of all species that have ever existed on earth are now extinct because of 'necessary evolutionary transitions'. Yet the fact is that 40 to 80% of all current living species found on the earth are represented fairly deeply in the fossil record.

The Fossil Record - The Myth Of +99.9% Extinct Species - Dr. Arthur Jones - video
"Stasis in the Fossil Record: 40-80% of living forms today are represented in the fossil record, despite being told in many text books that only about 0.1% are in this category. The rocks testify that no macro-evolutionary change has ever occurred. With the Cambrian Explosion complex fish, trilobites and other creatures appear suddenly without any precursors. Evidence of any transitional forms in the fossil record is highly contentious."
Paul James-Griffiths via Dr. Arthur Jones
The following studies tried to see how many species were on earth, the last study listed readily concedes how monumental the task is:
Marine Species Census - Nov. 2009
Excerpt: The researchers have found about 5,600 new species on top of the 230,000 known. They hope to add several thousand more by October 2010, when the census will be done.
Scientists finish first sea census - October 2010
Excerpt: The raw numbers behind the $650 million Census of Marine Life are impressive enough: Almost 30 million observations by 2,700 scientists from more than 80 nations spent 9,000 days at sea, producing 2,600 academic papers and documenting 120,000 species for a freely available online database.

Census of Marine Life Publishes Historic Roll Call of Species in 25 Key World Areas - August 2010
Excerpt: In October, the Census will release its latest estimate of all marine species known to science, including those still to be added to WoRMS and OBIS. This is likely to exceed 230,000.
Perhaps one of the most egregious violations to common sense, by the evolutionists, is the evolutionists claim that whales evolved from a terrestrial (land dwelling) mammal in a mere 10 million years (now revised down to 5 million years). These following videos and articles expose a few of their violations of logic:

Whale Evolution vs. The Actual Evidence – video - fraudulent fossils revealed

Whale Evolution? - Exposing The Deception - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video

This following studies provides solid support for Dr. Terry Mortenson's critique of 'imaginary' whale evolution in the preceding video:

Of Whale and Feather Evolution: Nature's Two Macroevolutionary Lumps of Coal (Dismantling Nature's evolutionary evangelism packet) - Casey Luskin _ November 2010
How Whales Have (NOT) Changed Over 35 Million Years – May 2010
Excerpt: We could have found that the main whale lineages over time each experimented with being large, small and medium-sized and that all the dietary forms appeared throughout their evolution, or that whales started out medium-sized and the largest and smallest ones appeared more recently—but the data show none of that. Instead, we find that the differences today were apparent very early on.
The following articles show how misleading Darwinists can be with the fossil evidence of whales:
An Email Exchange Regarding "Vestigial Legs" Pelvic Bones in Whales by Jim Pamplin
Excerpt: The pelvic bones (supposed Vestigial Legs) of whales serve as attachments for the musculature associated with the penis in males and its homologue, the clitoris, in females. The muscle involved is known as the ischiocavernosus and is quite a powerful muscle in males. It serves as a retractor muscle for the penis in copulation and probably provides the base for lateral movements of the penis. The mechanisms of penile motion are not well understood in whales. The penis seems to be capable of a lot of independent motion, much like the trunk of an elephant. How much of this is mediated by the ischiocavernosus is not known.
In females the anatomical parts are smaller and more diffuse. I would imagine that there is something homologous to the perineal muscles in man and tetrapods, which affect the entire pelvic area - the clitoris, vagina and anus.
The pelvic rudiments also serve as origins for the ischiocaudalis muscle, which is a ventral muscle that inserts on the tips of the chevron bones of the spinal column and acts to flex the tail in normal locomotion.

James G. Mead, Ph.D. - Curator of Marine Mammals - National Museum of Natural History - Smithsonian Institution
Meet Pakicetus, the Terrestrial Mammal BioLogos Calls a "Whale" - November 2010

This following sites are a bit more detailed in their dismantling of the whale evolution myth:
Whale Tale Two
Excerpt: We think that the most logical interpretation of the Pakicetus fossils are that they represent land-dwelling mammals that didn’t even have teeth or ears in common with modern whales. This actually pulls the whale evolution tree out by the roots. Evolutionists are back to the point of not having any clue as to how land mammals could possibly have evolved into whales.

Ambulocetus (49 million years ago)
Excerpt: Of all the supposed whale transitions, ambulocetus is probably the most well known. It is often depicted as an animal that is adapted to living on land and in the water. Of course, just like pakicetus, the artistic reconstructions of ambulocetus go beyond what the fossil findings justify.

Darwinians concoct a whale of a tale about the evolution of the ear - October 1, 2012
Excerpt: “When I saw it, I said ‘Oh my God!’ In most mammals the bone is a little bowl-shaped structure, but in whales the shape of the bone that makes up the ear is unique and in Indohyus it is the same. The inside of that bone is very thick, and on the outside, it’s very thin, the difference is giant. No other mammal has that,” said Thewissen.
However, when I investigated the evolutionary transformations of the ear bones in the lineage leading from the earliest whale-like creatures to modern whales (see the chart above), I was surprised to find that each of the alleged evolutionary intermediates appeared to have undergone not one but multiple modifications from its predecessor, in the design of its ear.
These following videos are very good, for they use the mathematical equations used by leading evolutionists themselves, for population genetics, to show that the evolution of whales, and even of humans, is impossible even by using their own mathematical methods of predicting change:

Whale Evolution Vs. Population Genetics - Richard Sternberg PhD. in Evolutionary Biology - video
Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011
Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.
Darwinism Vs. Whale Evolution - Part 1 - Richard Sternberg PhD. - SMU talk - video

Darwinism Vs. Whale Evolution - Part - Richard Sternberg PhD. - SMU talk - video

If the impossibility of what Dr. Sternberg outlined in the video was not bad enough for neo-Darwinists, the time frame for the hypothetical transition to whales has now been dramatically shortened:
A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica - JonathanM - October 2011
Excerpt: Argentine paleontologist Marcelo Reguero said the fossilized archaeocete jawbone found in February dates back 49 million years. In evolutionary terms, that’s not far off from the fossils of even older proto-whales from 53 million years ago that have been found,,,

Discovery of "Oldest Fully Aquatic Whale" Fossil Throws a Major Bone into Whale Evolution Story - Casey Luskin - October 18, 2011
Excerpt: In fact, if this find has been correctly identified, then fully aquatic whales might have existed before many of their alleged semi-aquatic evolutionary precursors.

"Whales have a long generation time, and they don't have huge populations. They're like the worst-case scenario for trying to evolve structures rapidly," "To fix all the mutations needed to convert a little land mammal into a fully functional whale [in ten million years]--mathematically that's totally not possible." Casey Luskin

Whale Evolution? Darwinist 'Trawlers' Have Every Reason To Be Concerned:
Excerpt: As one review noted: "The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive."
This following video takes a honest look at just what evolutionists are up against to satisfactorily explain whale evolution:

What Does It take To Change A Cow Into A Whale - David Berlinski - video

How to Become a Whale - David Klinghoffer - August 2011

Here is a cool animated video showing a sperm whale using 'designed' echolocation to hunt a giant squid:

Sperm Whale Vs Giant Squid - video

It seems the entire argument for inferring the supposed fossil sequence for whale evolution, in the fossil record, is primarily based on the erroneous readings of 'bone homology', or bone similarity, between different species. Yet this entire line of reasoning, for establishing scientific certainty for any proposed evolutionary sequence of fossils, is anything but 'certain', as this following video and quote clearly point out:

Investigating Evolution: Homology - video
How to Talk About "Evolution" - Tom Bethell - October 18, 2012
Excerpt: What about the evidence for universal common ancestry? It can be summarized by the word "homology." To understand homology, think of the similarity of mammalian forelimbs.
But we have to be careful how we define it. Ernst Mayr tried to co-opt it by definition. After Darwin, he wrote, the most "meaningful definition" of homology was: "A feature in two or more taxa is homologous when it is derived from the same (or a corresponding) feature of their common ancestor."
Jonathan Wells and Paul Nelson criticized this as follows:
"What Darwin proposed as the explanation for homology became its definition. For many biologists, the post-Darwinian (or phylogenetic) definition of homology has replaced the structural (or morphological) definition."
These biologists hope to smuggle into their definitions what they should show in their demonstrations. It's hard to believe that someone as highly placed as Ernst Mayr, resting on his Harvard laurels, didn't know what he was doing.

Repeated acquisition and loss of complex body form characters: Cornelius Hunter - December 2011
Excerpt: In other words, morphological patterns in biology, including the pentadactyl structure, do not fit the common descent model. This has evolutionists doing mental gymnastics as limbs and other designs must come and go as needed to make sense of evolution. They are lost, then reevolved, then lost, then whatever. It is all just storytelling.
If you want to make evolutionist Henry Gee mad at you remind him that he once wrote this following 'true' statement:
“To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story, amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
Evolutionist - Henry Gee, editor of Nature, on the feasibility of reconstructing phylogenetic trees from fossils
As well, there are very many similar creatures alive today (Marsupial and Placental mammals for one example) that, hypothetically, have completely different evolutionary paths yet their fossils are virtually indistinguishable from one another:

Are look-alikes related? - September 2010

Within the roughly 10 million years of time that whales are purported to have dramatically evolved from some wolf-like animal 50 million years ago, with at least +50,000 major morphological innovations no less, bats did not, and have not, changed in their basic shape at all. Bats popped out of the 'evolutionary woodwork' about 55 million years ago. They first appear as a radically new yet fully developed form, which was not in any way significantly different from modern bats. Their debut in the fossil record is sudden, complete, and lacks intermediaries as the following video and articles make clear:

Bat Evolution? - No Transitional Fossils! - video
Australonycteris clarkae is the oldest bat ever found in the fossil record at 54.6 million years old. The ear bones of Australonycteris show that it could navigate using echolocation just like modern bats.
Earliest known Australian Tertiary mammal fauna:- 1992
Excerpt: Radiometric dating of illites forming part of the matrix of the mammal-bearing zone has given a minimum age estimate of 54.6 plusminus 0.05 x 10^6 years,

First Eocene Bat From Australia
Excerpt: Remains of a bat, Australonycteris clarkae, gen. et sp. nov., are reported from freshwater clays radiometrically dated to 54.6 million years old in southeastern Queensland, Australia. It is the oldest bat recorded for the southern hemisphere and one of the world's oldest.

Australonycteris clarkae
Excerpt: Australonycteris clarkae, from the Eocene of Queensland, is the oldest bat from the Southern Hemisphere and one of the oldest in the world. It is similar to other archaic Eocene bats from the Northern Hemisphere, and could probably navigate using echolocation, like most bats do today. (of note: some "modern" bats do not use echolocation today):
Of note; The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers. The echometer cannot be installed into the bat in the afterward as a simple plug-in, rather echometer and brain had to be designed as a whole system from the beginning.

Moreover, identical forms of echolocation show up in widely divergent species. This finding is unexpected from an evolutionary perspective, yet this finding is exactly what we would expect to find from presupposing a Creator to reuse optimal designs:
Convergence Drives Evolution Batty - Fazale Rana - September 2010
Excerpt: convergence make sense if life stems from the work of a Creator.

Bothersome Bats and Other Pests Disturb the "Tree of Life" - Casey Luskin - December 5, 2012
Excerpt: But this is hardly the only known example of molecular convergent evolution. In his book The Cell's Design, chemist and Darwin-skeptic Fazale Rana reviewed the technical literature and documented over 100 reported cases of convergent genetic evolution. Each case shows an example where biological similarity -- even at the genetic level -- is not the result of inheritance from a common ancestor.

Common Design in Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes? - January 2011
Excerpt: two new studies in the January 26th issue of Current Biology, a Cell Press publication, show that bats' and whales' remarkable ability and the high-frequency hearing it depends on are shared at a much deeper level than anyone would have anticipated -- all the way down to the molecular level.

Convergent sequence evolution between echolocating bats and dolphins - Liu et al (2010)
Excerpt: We previously reported that the Prestin gene has undergone sequence convergence among unrelated lineages of echolocating bat [3]. Here we report that this gene has also undergone convergent amino acid substitutions in echolocating dolphins,
Bat and Whale Echolocation Genes Point to Common Design - February 2011 - Podcast

Here's a figure showing bats and dolphins group together on the same tree based on Prestin sequence comparisons.

'Convergent evolution' is found to be much more widespread than originally thought. In fact, Simon Conway Morris has a website documenting hundreds, if not thousands, of examples of 'convergence':

Map Of Life – Simon Conway Morris
Simon Conway Morris: “Fossil evidence demands a radical rewriting of evolution.” – March 2012
Excerpt: “The idea is this: that convergence – the tendency of very different organisms to evolve similar solutions to biological problems – is not just part of evolution, but a driving force. To say this is an unconventional view would be something of an understatement.”

Convergent evolution seen in hundreds of genes - Erika Check Hayden - 04 September 2013
Excerpt: “These results imply that convergent molecular evolution is much more widespread than previously recognized,” says molecular phylogeneticist Frédéric Delsuc at the The National Center for Scientific Research (CNRS) at the University of Montpellier in France, who was not involved in the study. What is more, he adds, the genes involved are not just the few, obvious ones known to be directly involved in a trait but a broader array of genes that are involved in the same regulatory networks.

Bats and Whales Share the Same Bio-Sonar Technology - May 2012
Excerpt: new research shows that wild whales also increase their rate of calls or clicks during a kill – and that whales’ buzz rates are nearly identical to that of bats, at about 500 calls or clicks per second.

The bionic antinomy of Darwinism
Excerpt: For example, the bats have an echometer emitting 100 kHz supersonic pulses at a frequency of 30 times per second. These waves are reflected and distorted by the surrounding objects and their echoes are intercepted and elaborated by the bat to catch its prey and also just to get around. The signal processing of these echoes is so accurate to allow bats to fly, twisting, looping and zig-zagging through the air, into a completely dark room intersected by tens pianoforte strings without grazing them. The bat’s echometer has more accuracy, more efficiency, less power consumption and less size than any artificial sonar constructed by engineers.

A comparison of signal detection between an echolocating dolphin and an optimal receiver - 1989
Excerpt: The results of experiment II indicated that the dolphin required approximately 7.4 dB higherE e /N than an optimal detector to detect the phantom target.

A false killer whale adjusts its hearing when it echolocates.- 2008
Excerpt: the animal has an active 'automatic gain control' mechanism in her hearing based on both forward masking that balances outgoing pulse intensity and time between pulse and echo, and active hearing control.

Ultrasound Technology Advanced by Dolphins and Bats - November 2011
Advances in ultrasound technology is being inspired by a new Israeli research project that studies dolphins, bats and mole rats.
Excerpt: Bisonar – the way animals interpret returning signals – involves superior, real-time data processing, according to Intrator, whose research was reported in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
Bisonar animals send ultrasonic sounds called “pings” into the environment. The shape of the returning signals, or echos, determines how these animals “see” their surroundings, helping them navigate or hunt for prey. Humans, however, cannot produce such an accurate picture, Intrator noted.
“Animal 'echolocations' are done in fractions of milliseconds, at a resolution so high that a dolphin can see a tennis ball from approximately 260 feet away,” the scientist explained, adding that animals are able to process several pieces of information simultaneously.
With echolocation, a bat can tell the difference between a fly in motion or at rest, or determine which of two fruits is heavier by observing their movements in the wind, Intrator said.
,,, the research could lead to cutting-edge navigation systems and more accurate medical imaging.
further notes on prestin optimality:
Prestin-driven cochlear amplification is not limited by the outer hair cell membrane time constant. - June 2011
Excerpt: Outer hair cells (OHCs) provide amplification in the mammalian cochlea using somatic force generation underpinned by voltage-dependent conformational changes of the motor protein prestin.,,, These data suggest that minimal τ(m) filtering in vivo ensures optimal activation of prestin.

Power Efficiency of Outer Hair Cell Somatic Electromotility -
Excerpt: Results show that the motor (OHC) is highly efficient over a broad range of auditory frequencies. Results also show that the motor is likely controlled by the brain in a way that allows the listener to focus attention on specific frequencies, thus improving the ability to distinguish sounds of interest in a noisy environment.
One further note on the 'optimality' of hearing is this,,
How Do We Hear
Excerpt: The normal human ear can distinguish between some 400,000 different sounds, some weak enough to cause the eardrum to move as little as one-tenth (1/10) the diameter of a hydrogen molecule.

Mammalian Ear Has "Extraordinary Features" - January 4, 2013
Excerpt: "Human hearing spans the enormous frequency range from 20 Hz to 20 kHz, yet we can distinguish frequencies that are only 0.2% apart. This interval is well below a semitone in Western music, which represents about 6% in frequency. Moreover, humans can perceive trillionfold differences in sound intensity, yet the faintest detectable sounds vibrate the tympanic membrane by only 10 pm [picometers, or trillionths of a meter]. These extraordinary features ensue from an active process that provides tuned mechanical amplification of weak signals in the mammalian cochlea."
More examples of 'convergence are here:

Study shows butterfly wings contain same (protein) toxin as sea snail - October 16, 2012
Far from Random, Evolution Follows a Predictable Genetic Pattern - (Oct. 25, 2012)
Excerpt: The researchers carried out a survey of DNA sequences from 29 distantly related insect species, the largest sample of organisms yet examined for a single,, trait.
Fourteen of these species have,, a nearly identical characteristic,, -- they feed on plants that produce cardenolides, a class of steroid-like cardiotoxins that are a natural defense for plants such as milkweed and dogbane.,,, these diverse insects -- which include beetles, butterflies and aphids -- experienced changes to a key protein called sodium-potassium adenosine triphosphatase, or the sodium-potassium pump, which regulates a cell's crucial sodium-to-potassium ratio.
"The finding of, (the same protein), in not two, but numerous herbivorous insects increases the significance of the study because such frequent parallelism is extremely unlikely to have happened simply by chance," said Zhang,

Dolphin Hearing System Component Found in Insects - Dec. 13, 2012
Excerpt: A hearing system component thought to be unique in toothed whales like dolphins has been discovered in insects,,,
"We don't know why animals who are so far apart in evolutionary terms have this similarity,,,"
Another example of extreme convergence, genetic and morphological, is noted here:

Getting Crushed: Evolutionists Are Now Saying That Some Species Have a Reputation For “Doing Things Their Own Way” - April 2012

As well, the popular evolutionary myth of 'Horse evolution' also appears to be severely misleading:
"The construction of the whole Cenozoic family tree of the horse is therefore a very artificial one, since it is put together from non-equivalent parts, and cannot therefore be a continuous transformation series".
Dr. Heribert Nilsson - Evolutionist - Former Director of the Swedish Botanical Institute.

Darwin vs. the Fossils
Excerpt: "A team of 22 international researchers led by Ludovic Orlando of the University of Lyon in France did one of the first-ever comprehensive comparisons of ancient DNA (aDNA) from fossil equids (including horses, donkeys and zebras). These specimens came from 4 continents. The results were so shocking, they call for an almost complete overhaul of the horse series. For one thing, they concluded that many specimens relegated to separate species are actually variations on the same species. For another, they found that for evolution to be true there had to be sudden bursts of diversification – Cambrian-like explosions within the horse family – contrary to Darwin’s prohibition of great and sudden leaps."

"The results, published June 20 in the journal Science Express, come from a study of 19 groups of mammals that either are extinct or, in the case of horses, elephants, rhinos and others, are in decline from a past peak in diversity. All are richly represented in the fossil record and had their origins sometime in the last 66 million years, during the Cenozoic Era."
The evolution of the horse?

The non-evolution of the horse
"Whales, bats, horses, primates, elephants, hares, squirrels, etc., all are as distinct at their first appearance as they are now. There is not a trace of a common ancestor, much less a link with any reptile, the supposed progenitor."
Harold Coffin - Zoologist - "A View Of Life"
As well, the favorite evolutionary myth of the Giraffe's neck slowly getting longer appears to be quite a 'stretch' of the truth from what the fossil record actually says:
"No data from giraffes then (in Darwin's time) existed to support one theory of causes over another, and none exists now."... ancestral species are relatively short necked, and spotty evidence gives no insight into how the long-necked species arose.""The standard story, in fact, is both fatuous and unsupported." - Stephen Jay Gould
The Evolution of the Long-Necked Giraffe (Giraffa camelopardalis L.) - What do we really know? - Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig

Pt. 1: Another Evolutionary Icon: The Long-Necked Giraffe - Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - podcast

Here is another article by Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig:

Geneticist W.-E. Loennig replies to Darwinist Nick Matzke: - September 2011
Psalm 50:10-11
For every beast of the forest is Mine, The cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, And everything that moves in the field is Mine.
This following article is interesting for it shows extreme stasis for a common feature shared by mammals:
CSI 100 million years BC: oldest mammalian hair found:
Excerpt:The oldest sample of mammalian hair ever found has been retrieved from a 100-million-year-old lump of amber. The scales on the hair – which provide its protective waterproof cover – are identical to those found on the hairs of mammals walking the Earth today.”
And though the 100 million year old mammalian hairs coincide with the abrupt appearance of mammals in the fossil record, the reason given, by the researches, for this stunning lack of change in hair is:
“Perhaps mammalian hair does its job so well that it does not need to evolve.”
That clearly is not a sufficient scientific explanation for why mammal hairs have remained basically unchanged for 100 million years. When I read that scientific 'explanation', I thought to myself, "That is not a scientific explanation for why, but rather is a shallow excuse similar to what you would expect to hear from a six-year old child for why something is broken in the house."

The somewhat sparse fossil record for primates and humans shows the same pattern of 'crisp' discontinuity and stasis as the rest of the fossil record does despite its disparity, as these following studies, videos, and quotes, point out:
"Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether".
Evolutionist Henry Gee, Nature 2001

“No fossil is buried with its birth certificate. That, and the scarcity of fossils, means that it is effectively impossible to link fossils into chains of cause and effect in any valid way... To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story—amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.”
- Henry Gee, In Search of Deep Time: Beyond the Fossil Record to a New History of Life

“Most of what we understand about primate evolution is pieced together from bits of teeth and jaws,"
Michael Novacek, curator of paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History, May 2009.

"If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we've got he'd surely say, "forget it; there isn't enough to go on."
David Pilbeam, Harvard University paleoanthropologist: from Richard E. Leakey's book, The Making of Mankind, 1982, p. 43.

Dr. Pilbeam also wrote the following regarding the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology :
"I am also aware of the fact that, at least in my own subject of paleoanthropology, "theory" - heavily influenced by implicit ideas almost always dominates "data". ....Ideas that are totally unrelated to actual fossils have dominated theory building, which in turn strongly influence the way fossils are interpreted"
The large variety of hominid (man or ape-like) fossils that we do have piece-meal records of are characterized by overlapping histories of 'distinctively different and stable' hominid species. There is never a transition between any of the stable hominid kinds no matter where, or in what era, the hominid fossils are found.

The following sources show unequivocally that 'Lucy', the supposed superstar of human evolution, was an ape:
"these australopith specimens (Lucy) can be accommodated with the range of intraspecific variation of African apes"
Nature 443 (9/2006), p.296

"The australopithecines (Lucy) known over the last several decades from Olduvai and Sterkfontein, Kromdraai and Makapansgat, are now irrevocably removed from a place in a group any closer to humans than to African apes and certainly from any place in a direct human lineage."
Charles Oxnard, former professor of anatomy at the University of Southern California Medical School, who subjected australopithecine fossils to extensive computer analysis;

Israeli Researchers: 'Lucy' is not direct ancestor of humans"; Apr 16, 2007
The Mandibular ramus morphology (lower jaw bone) on a recently discovered specimen of Australopithecus afarensis closely matches that of gorillas. This finding was unexpected given that chimpanzees are the closest living relatives of humans.,,,its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor.

"The australopithecine (Lucy) skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian (ape-like) as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white."
Lord Solly Zuckerman - Chief scientific advisor to British government and leading zoologist
Lucy - The Powersaw Incident - a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence

Lucy - She's No Lady - lecture video (review of the 'severely distorted' evidence of Lucy starts at about the 17:00 minute mark)
My Pilgrimage to Lucy’s Holy Relics Fails to Inspire Faith in Darwinism
Excerpt: ---"We were sent a cast of the Lucy skeleton, and I was asked to assemble it for display,” remembers Peter Schmid, a paleontologist at the Anthropological Institute in Zurich.,,, "When I started to put [Lucy’s] skeleton together, I expected it to look human,” Schmid continues “Everyone had talked about Lucy as being very modern, very human, so I was surprised by what I saw.”

New study suggests big bang theory of human evolution - U of M Press Release
Excerpt: "The earliest H. sapiens remains differ significantly from australopithecines in both size and anatomical details. Insofar as we can tell, these changes were sudden and not gradual."
University of Michigan anthropologist Milford Wolpoff

"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional species to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving".
Richard Leakey, world's foremost paleo-anthropologist, in a PBS documentary, 1990.
The Fossil Man with Dr. Brad Harrub - video

The supposed next step(s) for 'human evolution' does not fair any better for the evolutionists than Lucy did:
Australopithecus africanus
Excerpt: Australopithecus africanus was once considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans but new finds have challenged this position. Many scientists now believe this species represents a side branch in our evolutionary family tree but there is disagreement about its exact relationship to other species.
Many of the fossils found at South African sites in the 1930s and 1940s were given separate names, such as Australopithecus transvaalensis, Plesianthropus transvaalensis and Australopithecus prometheus. These are all now recognised as belonging to the same species, Australopithecus africanus.
Fossils discovered in Malapa, South Africa, in 2008 were announced as a new species Australopithecus sediba in 2010, but many other palaeontologists consider the fossils to be a chronospecies of A. africanus – meaning that the slight anatomical differences between the new fossils and A. africanus are due to changes over time within a species rather than them being from different species. This would extend the time range for A. africanus by almost half a million years.

Homo Habilis
Excerpt: This species was initially considered to be a direct ancestor of modern humans but fossil discoveries in the mid-1980s showed that Homo habilis had rather ape-like limb proportions. This evidence led to a reassessment of Homo habilis and its relationship to modern humans. Many scientists no-longer regard this species as one of our direct ancestors and instead have moved it onto a side branch of our family tree.

The changing face of genus Homo - Wood; Collard
Excerpt: the current criteria for identifying species of Homo are difficult, if not impossible, to operate using paleoanthropological evidence. We discuss alternative, verifiable, criteria, and show that when these new criteria are applied to Homo, two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, fail to meet them.

Human evolution?
Excerpt: Some scientists have proposed moving this species (habilis) out of Homo and into Australopithecus (ape) due to the morphology of its skeleton being more adapted to living on trees rather than to moving on two legs like H. sapiens.

Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo? - Ann Gibbons - June 2011
Abstract: In the past decade, Homo habilis's status as the first member of our genus has been undermined. Newer analytical methods suggested that H. habilis matured and moved less like a human and more like an australopithecine, such as the famous partial skeleton of Lucy. Now, a report in press in the Journal of Human Evolution finds that H. habilis's dietary range was also more like Lucy's than that of H. erectus, which many consider the first fully human species to walk the earth. That suggests the handyman had yet to make the key adaptations associated with our genus, such as the ability to exploit a variety of foods in many environments, the authors say.

New findings raise questions about who evolved from whom
Excerpt: The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years,,, The two species lived near each other, but probably didn’t interact with each other, each having their own “ecological niche,” Spoor said. Homo habilis was likely more vegetarian and Homo erectus ate some meat, he said. Like chimps and apes, “they’d just avoid each other, they don’t feel comfortable in each other’s company,” he said.

The Truth About Human Origins:
Excerpt: "It is practically impossible to determine which "family tree" (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard's wife) has proposed still another.,,"

Human evolution: We know little, and with good reason:
"Despite decades of patient work we still know rather little about the evolution of humanity…the remains we have are very scarce and very meager and that means that there are probably lots of different species that existed, lived for hundreds of thousands of years and then became extinct and we know nothing about them… All you need is just one to completely blow apart your well entrenched comfortable idea of the linear progress of evolution."
Henry Gee - Editor Of Nature Magazine
It seems Henry Gee’s insight has now proven correct:
Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray - OCT. 17, 2013
Excerpt: Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.,,,
If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis.
Homo Erectus Skull Discovery Throws Story Of Human Evolution Into disarray - video
Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2013
Excerpt: "I think it's probably premature to dump everything into Homo erectus," Johanson told NBC News. "This is what you're going to find the most opposition to.",,,
"There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know."

Human Evolution
Excerpt: Tattersall thinks H. erectus was an evolutionary dead end. Uconn says he was our immediate ancestor. There are several other differences which we won’t take the time to point out.

A recent issue of Science presents the six different explanations of hominid evolution at the right, which they refer to as “Figure 1.” Their caption says:

Figure 1. Cladograms favored in recent early hominin parsimony analyses. (A) Most parsimonious cladogram recovered by Chamberlain and Wood (19) using Chamberlain’s (18) operational taxonomic units. Homo sp. = H. rudolfensis. (B) Most parsimonious cladogram obtained in Chamberlain (18). African H. erectus = H. ergaster. (C) Cladogram favored in Wood (9). Homo sp. nov. = H. rudolfensis and H. aff. erectus = H. ergaster. (D) Most parsimonious cladogram recovered by Wood (2). A. boisei includes A. aethiopicus. (E) Most parsimonious cladogram obtained by Lieberman et al. (20). 1470 group = H. rudolfensis; 1813 group = H. habilis. (F) Cladogram favored by Strait et al. (17).
Some races living today, like the native (pictured) to the side, have the large eyebrow projections and the foreheads that are inclined backwards—features peculiar to Homo erectus skulls. - picture

This following video is interesting to Darwinian claims about the fossil record being incomplete. In the following video, from 15:05 minute mark to 19:15 minute mark, Phillip Johnson directly addresses that claim:

What I saw about the fossil record again,, was that Gould and Eldridge were experts in the area where the animal fossil record is most complete. That is marine invertebrates.,, And the reason for this is that when,, a bird, or a human, or an ape, or a wolf, or whatever, dies,, normally it does not get fossilized. It decays in the open, or is eaten by scavengers. Things get fossilized when they get covered over quickly with sediments so that they are protected from this natural destructive process. So if you want to be a fossil, the way to go about it is to live in the shallow seas, where you get covered over by sediments when you die,,. Most of the animal fossils are of that kind and it is in that area where the fossil record is most complete. That there is a consistent pattern.,, I mean there is evolution in the sense of variation, just like the peppered moth example. Things do vary, but they vary within the type. The new types appear suddenly, fully formed, without an evolutionary history and then they stay fundamentally stable with (cyclical) variation after their sudden appearance, and stasis (according) to the empirical observations made by Gould and Eldridge. Well now you see, I was aware of a number of examples of where evolutionary intermediates were cited. This was brought up as soon as people began to make the connection and question the (Darwinian) profession about their theory in light of the controversy. But the examples of claimed evolutionary transitionals, oddly enough, come from the area of the fossil record where fossilization is rarest. Where it is least likely to happen.,,,
Yet that is odd if the problem is the greatest where the fossil record is most complete and if the confirming examples are found where fossils are rarest. that doesn't sound like it could be the explanation.
- Phillip Johnson
- April 2012 - audio/video

Severe problems with human evolution narrative

Is the early history of the human race such a mess that it shouldn’t be taught in school? - June 2011

Here are some fairly good videos for refuting the blatant fallacy of human evolution:

Human Evolution? - What Do The Bones Really Say? - Don Patton - video

Bones Of Contention - Dr. Marc Surtees - video

Is there a Monkey in your Family Tree? - Thomas Kindell - video

Hugh Ross : Who was Adam? part 1 of 11 - audio

The following video is of a professor of paleoanthropology openly admitting that genuine problems exist in the Darwinian story of human origins.,, All I can say is that he must be tenured! (Of note: after watching the video, Dr. Fazale Rana commented that it seemed as if Dr. Wood had taken a page out of his, and Dr. Ross's, book, 'Who was Adam?';

Pikaia interviews Bernard Wood - pt. 1/2 - video

Pikaia interviews Bernard Wood - pt. 2/2 - video

The differences between apes and humans, that Dr. Wood alluded to, are indeed much more profound than neo-Darwinists have led many to believe:

“Museum of Comparative Anthropogeny” Human Uniqueness Compared to "Great Apes" (Hundreds of differences listed between humans and 'great apes' with references for each difference listed)

Here is a study that highlights the problems, that Dr. Wood referenced, that paleoanthropologists are running into:
Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011
Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10]

Human Origins, and the Real Reasons for Evolutionary Skepticism - Jonathan M. - December 9, 2012
Excerpt: "Cladistic analysis of cranial and dental evidence has been widely used to generate phylogenetic hypotheses about humans and their fossil relatives. However, the reliability of these hypotheses has never been subjected to external validation. To rectify this, we applied internal methods to equivalent evidence from two groups of extant higher primates for whom reliable molecular phylogenies are available, the hominoids and paionins. We found that the phylogenetic hypotheses based on the craniodental data were incompatible with the molecular phylogenies for the groups. Given the robustness of the molecular phylogenies, these results indicate that little confidence can be placed in phylogenies generated solely from higher primate craniodental evidence. The corollary of this is that existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable."

No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests - Oct. 21, 2013
Excerpt: The article, "No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans," relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins -- humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,,
They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match.
"None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor," Gómez-Robles said.

Skull "Rewrites" Story of Human Evolution -- Again - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2013
Excerpt: "There is a big gap in the fossil record," Zollikofer told NBC News. "I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don't know." -
Many very useful references highlighting the many problems of the Darwinian narrative for human evolution are on this following site:

Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - June 2011

The following studies show that the dating of stone age artifacts for humans is not nearly as reliable as at first believed:
Animals Can Skew Archaeological Dates - October 2010
Excerpt: “Animals push human tools into ground—and back in time, study says,” was a subtitle of a report in National Geographic News. This factor could cause mis-dating of stone tools and other artifacts, “making them seem older than they really are—in some cases, thousands of years older,” experiments have demonstrated.,, “To our amazement,” lead author Metin Eren said, “the disturbance was much greater than we had anticipated.” “Trampling could even create the illusion of ancient sites where none really existed,”,, Is this a minor matter? Anthropologist Julien Riel-Salvatore of the University of Colorado Denver said, “Pretty much any open-air site located near a water source will potentially be very seriously affected by some of these conclusions.”

Neanderthals did not shop at prehistoric Tiffany's - October 2010
Excerpt: The key finding is that as you dig down through the layers of sediment in the Grotte du Renne, the age of the remains does not increase as you would expect. Instead, the ages of the different objects are all over the place, suggesting that remains from different eras have got mixed up together.,,, This leads Higham to suggest that a key piece of evidence for Neanderthal sophistication has fallen.
This following quote, by a leading evolutionist in the field, is candid in its admission of the gaps for the evidence of human evolution.
A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that "The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins:
Even though the preceding comment from a leading evolutionist in the field is crushing, to the smooth transition needed for the materialist to make his case for human evolution, you would think a materialist would at least have some sort of evidence he could cling to with the Homo erectus and the Homo rudolfensis fossils Mayr alluded to. Yet when we look at the evidence presented by the materialists themselves, for the proposed evolution of Homo Rudolfensis and erectus, the evidence is anything but straight forward and appears to be, once again, 'shoehorned' to fit their preconceived philosophical bias:
“Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage

DeWitt’s digital manipulation of skull 1470 - August 13, 2012
Excerpt: The skull as presented in the news websites has some significant issues that suggests that the facial reconstruction is seriously off.

"One famous fossil skull, discovered in 1972 in northern Kenya, changed its appearance dramatically depending on how the upper jaw was connected to the rest of the cranium. Roger Lewin recounts an occasion when paleoanthropologists Alan Walker, Michael Day, and Richard Leakey were studying the two sections of skull 1470. According to Lewin, Walker said: You could hold the [upper jaw] forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the face short…. How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting watching what people did with it. Lewin reports that Leakey recalled the incident, too: Yes. If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else."
Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, Second Edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), p 160

Contemplating Bill Nye’s 51 skulls slide - February 10, 2014 - with video
Excerpt: David A. DeWitt, Biology & Chemistry chair at Liberty, knows a thing or two about skulls, and writes to say,
"This afternoon and evening I tracked down 46 of the 51 skulls that were on the slide Nye showed in the Ken Ham debate (at about 1:05 on the Youtube video).
This was a challenge because some of them are not very well analyzed, partial skulls, etc. While some of them are well known, others are rarely discussed. I believe only a well-trained anthropologist would have been able to address that slide in the very brief time that it was visible. It was especially confusing because the skulls are in different orientations (including one that is viewed from the bottom and one that is just a jaw). They were not shown with the same scale so the relative sizes are wrong, and they are not grouped or lined up in any clear order. They are mixed up by type of skull and by date, and the only label is the name of the individual skull. I suspect that this was deliberate.,,,"
"I can only conclude that the sole purpose of showing such a slide was to confuse and obfuscate, not educate.”
Moreover, this problem of forcing the fossil evidence into a preconceived Darwinian narrative, is not limited to the 1470 skull, or deceptive debate practices by Darwinists, but this practice is found to be is widespread in the field of paleo-anthropology itself:
Hominids, Homonyms, and Homo sapiens - 05/27/2009 - Creation Safaris:
Excerpt: Homo erectus is particularly controversial, because it is such a broad classification. Tattersall and Schwartz find no clear connection between the Asian, European and African specimens lumped into this class. “In his 1950 review, Ernst Mayr placed all of these forms firmly within the species Homo erectus,” they explained. “Subsequently, Homo erectus became the standard-issue ‘hominid in the middle,’ expanding to include not only the fossils just mentioned, but others of the same general period....”. They discussed the arbitrariness of this classification: "Put together, all these fossils (which span almost 2 myr) make a very heterogeneous assortment indeed; and placing them all together in the same species only makes any conceivable sense in the context of the ecumenical view of Homo erectus as the middle stage of the single hypervariable hominid lineage envisioned by Mayr (on the basis of a much slenderer record). Viewed from the morphological angle, however, the practice of cramming all of this material into a single Old World-wide species is highly questionable. Indeed, the stuffing process has only been rendered possible by a sort of ratchet effect, in which fossils allocated to Homo erectus almost regardless of their morphology have subsequently been cited as proof of just how variable the species can be." By “ratchet effect,” they appear to mean something like a self-fulfilling prophecy: i.e., “Let’s put everything from this 2-million-year period into one class that we will call Homo erectus.” Someone complains, “But this fossil from Singapore is very different from the others.” The first responds, “That just shows how variable the species Homo erectus can be.”

A Big Bang Theory of Homo - Casey Luskin - August 2012
Excerpt: To the contrary, she explains, habilis "displays much stronger similarities to African ape limb proportions" than even Lucy. She called these results "unexpected in view of previous accounts of Homo habilis as a link between australopithecines and humans."
Without habilis as an intermediate, it is difficult to find fossil hominins to serve as direct transitional forms between the australopithecines and Homo. Rather, the fossil record shows dramatic and abrupt changes that correspond to the appearance of Homo.

Homo erectus: A Highly Intelligent Seafaring Boatbuilder? - Casey Luskin - August 21, 2012
Excerpt: The point of all this is that other members of our genus Homo don't represent unintelligent, non-human, ape-like forms. They looked a lot like us, and there's increasingly good evidence that they thought a lot like us too. As I recently discussed, some scientists even suggest that Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens were really just the same species. When our genus Homo appears in the fossil record, it does so abruptly, very different from previous forms, and without evolutionary precursors.

Complex Tool Discovery Argues for Early Human Smarts By Stephanie Pappas – Wed, Nov 7, 2012
Excerpt: One potential sign of complex thought would be an elaborately produced artifact that would have required capabilities such as language to pass along the technique to future generations.,,,
Continuity of history,,,
"Eleven thousand years of continuity is, in reality, an almost unimaginable time span for people to consistently make tools the same way," Marean said. "This is certainly not a flickering pattern." Moreover, heat treatment of stone was seen at Pinnacle Point about 160,000 years ago, suggesting people there mastered this complex technique for nearly 100,000 years.
Another so called missing link in human evolution to recently make mainstream media headlines, in May 2009, is "Ida" the 47 million year old lemur-type primate. Ida is touted as 'The Eighth Wonder Of The World' by a few publicity seeking paleontologists who are involved in examining her. Yet Ida has failed to inspire such frenzied faith from other paleontologists in the field as is noted in this following article:
Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt 'Ida' Is Your Ancestor - May 2009
Excerpts: "They claim these animals have something to do with the direct line of human ancestry and living monkeys and apes. This claim is buttressed with almost no evidence," paleontologist Richard Kay of Duke University. - "It's not a missing link, it's not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they're trying to make,"
Chris Beard curator of vertebrate paleontology at the Carnegie Museum of Natural History in Pittsburgh.
‘Missing link’ primate isn’t a link after all:
Excerpt: "In fact, Ida is as far removed from the monkey-ape-human ancestry as a primate could be"
Erik Seiffert of Stony Brook University in New York.
Ida’s Critics Demolish Claims That Fossil Is Human Evolutionary Link - March 2010

Sir David Attenborough - admits that 'the fossil links for human evolution are missing' but Ida, the now discredited fossil, supposedly finally solved the puzzle of missing links - video

The same lack of faith among paleontologists can be found for the recent media sensation of 'Ardi' of Oct. 2009:
Artificially Reconstructed “Ardi” Overturns Prevailing Evolutionary Hypotheses of Human Evolution - Oct. 2009
Excerpt: The missing link presently being touted in the media, Ardipithecus ramidus, has had more reconstructive surgery than Michael Jackson.,,,One problem is that some portions of Ardi's skeleton were found crushed nearly to smithereens and needed extensive digital reconstruction. "Tim [White] showed me pictures of the pelvis in the ground, and it looked like an Irish stew," says Walker. Indeed, looking at the evidence, different paleoanthropologists may have different interpretations of how Ardi moved,,,

The propaganda machine goes into overdrive:
Excerpt: But Ardi's foot is fairly well preserved... and it is very obviously a flat-footed ape's foot - complete with curved toe bones, best suited for grasping branches:,,, Even some evolutionists, like Jungers, point this out: "Divergent big toes are associated with grasping, and this has one of the most divergent big toes you can imagine." "Why would an animal fully adapted to support its weight on its forelimbs in the trees elect to walk bipedally on the ground?" Ian Juby - Newsletter

Ardi Party Is Over - Nov. 2009
Excerpt: In an article by Katherine Harmon in the pro-evolutionary magazine Scientific American, "So many doubts are evident that laymen should seriously question whether this fossil suggests anything about human origins."

Ardi: The Human Ancestor Who Wasn't? - May 2010
Excerpt: "[White] showed no evidence that Ardi is on the human lineage," Sarmiento says. "Those characters that he posited as relating exclusively to humans also exist in apes and ape fossils that we consider not to be in the human lineage.",8599,1992115,00.html
Sensation of the Month: "Ardi" - video

Icon Of Evolution - Ape To Man - The Ultimate Deception - Jonathan Wells - video
Hominid Hype and the Election Cycle - Casey Luskin - September 2011
Excerpt: Ignoring fraudulent fossils like Piltdown man, the last 50 years have seen a slew of so-called human ancestors which initially produced hype, and were later disproven.
In this following podcast, Casey Luskin thoroughly debunks the hype surrounding the newest missing link, as of September 2011, Australopithecus sediba. Starting a little after the 7:00 minute mark on the podcast, he quotes from several leading paleontologists in the field who express deep skepticism for the grandiose claims being made in media headlines about its status as irrefutable proof of a 'missing link' for human evolution:

Recently Reported Fossil is Old News: Media Hype & the Upcoming Election - September 2011

Media Respond Predictably (and Uncritically) to Latest Ape-Man - Australopithecus sediba - September 2011
Australopithecus sediba: The Hype-Cycle Starts Again – Casey Luskin – September 2011
Excerpt: So leading paleoanthropologists like Bernard Wood, Donald Johanson, Fred Spoor, Ian Tattersal, and Tim White aren’t convinced that Au. sediba was a human ancestor, but the media believes it’s perfectly acceptable to promote the opposite view to the public.,,, A final problem with the claims being made about Au. sediba is related the paleoanthropologist who found the fossils himself. Science reports that he formerly had a career as a TV news producer and has a tendency to overstate his findings:,,,
The Fall of Australopithecus sediba: Controversy and the Quest for Glory Cloud Claims of Human Ancestry - Casey Luskin - June 12, 2013
Human ancestry declared to be still an enduring puzzle - David Tyler - June 10, 2013
Excerpt: "Given the mix of features seen in A. sediba, it is difficult to understand why these researchers insist that it lies at the base of the Homo lineage. Similar intellectual gymnastics are required to comprehend the authors' argument that no African Homo fossils exist from before the time of A. sediba. Although the recent papers constitute a fascinating further analysis of the A. sediba fossils, I do not think that they provide compelling evidence that this species is anything other than an unusual australopith from a Pliocene-Pleistocene time period that is already populated by a fair number of them."
- William H. Kimbel - Hesitation on hominin history - Nature, 497, 573-574 (30 May 2013)
The same 'over-hype' goes for this fairly recent hominid fossil discovery:

“Hype and Over-Interpretation” Causing Family Feud Over New Hominid Fossil - April 2010

These following quotes sum up what materialists appear to be doing with this 'evidence' for human evolution:
"But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with."

Has Science Shown That We Evolved from Ape-like Creatures? by Casey Luskin - Fall 2013 (useful references at the end of the article)
Excerpt: A closer look at the literature shows that hominin fossils generally fall into one of two categories—ape-like species or human-like species (of the genus Homo)—and that there is a large, unbridged gap between them. Despite the claims of many evolutionary paleoanthropologists, the fragmented hominin fossil record does not document the evolution of humans from ape-like precursors. In fact, scientists are quite sharply divided over who or what our human ancestors even were. Newly discovered fossils are often initially presented to the public with great enthusiasm and fanfare, but once cooler heads prevail, their status as human evolutionary ancestors is invariably called into question. -

Science and Human Origins: A Review - Jonathan M. - June 2012
Excerpt: (Casey) Luskin concludes (his overview of fossil evidence) by arguing that the hominin fossil record is "marked by incomplete and fragmented fossils" where species continually appear in an abrupt fashion.

Missing Transitional Fossils in the Hominid Fossil Record - Casey Luskin - Sept. 12, 2012 - podcast
Description: On this episode of ID the Future, listen to a short segment of a recent presentation Casey Luskin gave on the hominid fossil record. While popular media often reports that the fossil record is complete and conclusive, the technical scientific literature reveals this to be false. In actuality, human-like fossils and ape-like fossil are clearly distinct from one another, and the so-called transitional fossil record is highly fragmented.
Here is a excellent summary of the work Casey Luskin has done exposing the (very) over-hyped claims for human evolution in the fossil record, as well as excellent summary exposing the less than forthright argumentation tactics of Darwinists (shifting the burden of proof for one tactic) when they debate human evolution with someone who doubts it occurred:
How do Theistic Evolutionists Explain the Fossil Record and Human Origins? - Casey Luskin - September 14, 2012
Excerpt: In six recent articles (see the links at right), I have argued that the fossil record does not support the evolution of ape-like species into human-like species. Rather, hominin fossils generally fall into two distinct groups: ape-like species and human-like species, with a large, unbridged gap between them.,,, Third, not all paleontologists agree with Kidder that the lack of transitional fossils is simply the result of the unsophisticated (and all-too-easy) excuse the fossil record is poor. Consider what paleontologist Niles Eldredge and paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersal (who are both committed evolutionists) co-wrote in a book on human origins:
"The record jumps, and all the evidence shows that the record is real: the gaps we see reflect real events in life's history -- not the artifact of a poor fossil record."

(Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, The Myths of Human Evolution, p. 59 (NY: Columbia University Press, 1982).)
Human Origins, Theistic Evolution and the Fossil Record – Casey Luskin – summer 2013 - audio

The following article tells of a fossil that 'now' appears to be a human, yet when first discovered, the evolutionists were quick to call the fossil a 'new species':
First “Hobbits”, Now Pygmies?
Excerpt: "INDONESIAN scientists have found a community of Pygmy people on the eastern island of Flores, near a village where Australian scientists discovered a dwarf-sized skeleton last year and declared it a new human species, a newspaper says. This latest discovery will likely raise more controversy over the finding of homo floresiensis."
These following studies confirm that the 'Hobbits' are actually human:
'Hobbit' Was an Iodine-Deficient Human, Not Another Species, - September 2010
Excerpt: The University of Western Australia's Emeritus Professor Charles Oxnard and his colleagues, in a paper in PLoS ONE have reconfirmed, on the post-cranial skeleton, their original finding on the skull that Homo floresiensis in fact bears the hallmarks of humans -- Homo sapiens -- affected by hypothyroid cretinism.

Hobbits Were Brain Diseased Modern Humans - August 2011
Excerpt: A new paper compared skulls of H. floresiensis with those of modern humans, Homo erectus, and humans with microcephaly. The result favors the interpretation that the Hobbits most likely were diseased modern humans.
The Hobbit 'hoax' is very similar in nature to the many other infamous hoaxes for human evolution that Darwinists have perpetuated for years in the past:
EVOLUTION FORGERIES (For Human Evolution) - excerpts -
Piltdown Man: An Orang-utan Jaw and a Human Skull!
Nebraska Man: A Single Pig Tooth!
Ota Benga: The African Native Put Into a Cage!
Ape-Men: The Grand Illusion - Dr. Terry Mortenson - video

Planet of the Apes? - Chris W. Ashcraft - video

These following quotes sum up nicely what we can make of the poverty of the fossil record for 'human evolution':
When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.
Richard Lewontin - "Human Diversity", pg.163 (Scientific American Library, 1995) - Harvard Zoologist

Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis."

Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers.
Evolutionist Ernst Mayr (What Evolution Is. 2001)

Human Origins and the Fossil Record: What Does the Evidence Say? - Casey Luskin - July 2012
Excerpt: Indeed, far from supplying "a nice clean example" of "gradualistic evolutionary change," the record reveals a dramatic discontinuity between ape-like and human-like fossils. Human-like fossils appear abruptly in the record, without clear evolutionary precursors, making the case for human evolution based on fossils highly speculative.

Later Hominins: The Australopithecine Gap - Casey Luskin - August 2012
Excerpt: Paleoanthropologist Leslie Aiello, who served as head of the anthropology department at University College London, states that when it comes to locomotion, "australopithecines are like apes, and the Homo group are like humans. Something major occurred when Homo evolved, and it wasn't just in the brain." The "something major" that occurred was the abrupt appearance of the human body plan -- without direct evolutionary precursors in the fossil record.

“Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
Anthropologist Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246.
(emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

"A number of hominid crania are known from sites in eastern and southern Africa in the 400- to 200-thousand-year range, but none of them looks like a close antecedent of the anatomically distinctive Homo sapiens…Even allowing for the poor record we have of our close extinct kin, Homo sapiens appears as distinctive and unprecedented…there is certainly no evidence to support the notion that we gradually became who we inherently are over an extended period, in either the physical or the intellectual sense."
Dr. Ian Tattersall: - paleoanthropologist - emeritus curator of the American Museum of Natural History - (Masters of the Planet, 2012)

Double Standards and a Single Variable - Casey Luskin - August 2012
Excerpt: (arguments) revolving around a single variable (brain size) which he claims (wrongly) shows smooth, gradual evolution. Even if this variable did evolve smoothly, I provide an extensive discussion in my chapter of why that would not demonstrate that humans share a common ancestor with apes. McBride fails to engage my discussion of the evolution of brain size, ignoring my arguments why skulls of "intermediate" size demonstrate very little. And as we'll see in a further article, the authorities he relies upon to claim that the evolution of cranial capacities displays a "lack of discontinuity" in fact argue that there is great discontinuity -- including "punctuational changes" and "saltation" -- in the hominin fossil record as it pertains to skull size.
The gap in skull sizes is gone over at the 29:11 minute mark in the following video, in an extremely fair and even even-handed manner, by Dr. Geim.

Science and Human Origins--Objections (Part 3) 7-27-2013 by Paul Giem - video

at the 32:44 minute mark of the preceding video, Dr. Geim states,
“You’ve got a pretty clear division point (for skull sizes)”

Read Your References Carefully: Paul McBride's Prized Citation on Skull-Sizes Supports My Thesis, Not His - Casey Luskin - August 31, 2012
Excerpt of Conclusion: This has been a long article, but I hope it is instructive in showing how evolutionists deal with the fossil hominin evidence. As we've seen, multiple authorities recognize that our genus Homo appears in the fossil record abruptly with a complex suite of characteristics never-before-seen in any hominin. And that suite of characteristics has remained remarkably constant from the time Homo appears until the present day with you, me, and the rest of modern humanity. The one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,,
The complex suite of traits associated with our genus Homo appears abruptly, and is distinctly different from the australopithecines which were supposedly our ancestors. There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group.,,,

McBride Misstates My Arguments in Science and Human Origins - Casey Luskin September 5, 2012
Excerpt: At the end of the day, I leave this exchange more confident than before that the evidence supports the abrupt appearance of our genus Homo.
Science & Human Origins: Interview with Casey Luskin (on the severe and large gaps in the hypothetical human evolution fossil record) - July 2012 - podcast

In Science and Human Origins, Casey Luskin Reveals the "Big Bang" of Human Evolution - June 2012

This article, with a video clip, is interesting. Please note in the video clip how when the skulls of proposed ape ancestors to man are viewed from the bottom, and compared with man's skull, the differences readily pop out:

From Monkey to Man? Darwin Being Challenged - article with video

Of related note:
Energy Efficiency Doesn’t Explain Human Walking? Sept. 17, 2012
Excerpt: Why hominids evolved upright walking is one of the biggest questions in human evolution. One school of thought suggests that bipedalism was the most energetically efficient way for our ancestors to travel as grasslands expanded and forests shrank across Africa some five million to seven million years ago. A new study in the Journal of Human Evolution challenges that claim, concluding that the efficiency of human walking and running is not so different from other mammals.
Physiologists Lewis Halsey of the University of Roehampton in England and Craig White of the University of Queensland in Australia compared the efficiency of human locomotion to that of 80 species of mammals, including monkeys, rodents, horses, bears and elephants.,,,
To evaluate whether energy efficiency played a role in the evolution of upright walking, Halsey and White note that hominids should be compared to their closest relatives. For example, if human walking is more efficient than chimpanzee walking than you would expect based on chance alone, then it lends support to the energy-efficiency explanation. But that’s not what the researchers found. In fact, the energetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are smaller than the differences between very closely related species that share the same type of locomotion, such as red deer versus reindeer or African dogs versus Arctic foxes. In some cases, even different species within the same genus, such as different types of chipmunks, have greater variation in their walking efficiencies than humans and chimps do.

Another Difficulty with Darwinian Accounts of How Human Bipedalism Developed - David Klinghoffer - February 21, 2013
Excerpt: A Darwinian evolutionary bedtime story tells of how proto-man achieved his upright walking status when the forests of his native East Africa turned to savannas. That was 4 to 6 million years ago, and the theory was that our ancestors stood up in order to be able to look around themselves over the sea of grasslands, which would have been irrelevant in the forests of old.
A team of researchers led by USC's Sarah J. Feakins, writing in the journal Geology, detonate that tidy explanation with their finding that the savannas, going back 12 million years, had already been there more than 6 million years when the wonderful transition to bipedalism took place ("Northeast African vegetation change over 12 m.y.").
This following site has a graph which was made by an evolutionist. The graph shows the only actual transition ever witnessed by anyone, between any of the stable hominid lineages on the graph, is in the imaginations of the evolutionists who draw the connecting lines between the stable hominid lineages on such graphs. I guess drawing connecting lines on such graphs represents hard physical evidence for them.

Hominid Fossil Graph

The hard evidence clearly suggests the abrupt arrival of man in the fossil record. Yet if you were to ask an average person on the street if we have evolved from apes he will tell you of course we have 'evolved' and wonder why you would ask such a stupid question, since 'everyone knows' this is clearly proven in the fossil record. One hard fact in the fossil record, which is not disputed by most materialists, is the fact man has the youngest distinct fossil of all fossils to appear in the fossil record on earth. What's funny is that most materialists don't even stop to realize that this fact of man being the last fossil to appear in the fossil record is a huge piece of evidence that argues very strongly against their theory.

After looking through the 'fossil evidence' for human evolution, it seems to me that the most suggestive thing evolutionists have for proving to us 'the fact that humans evolved from apes', as they adamantly claim, are the infamous cartoon drawings that show a ape slowly evolving into man. Yet we find,
“We have all seen the canonical parade of apes, each one becoming more human. We know that, as a depiction of evolution, this line-up is tosh (i.e. nonsense). Yet we cling to it. Ideas of what human evolution ought to have been like still colour our debates.”
Henry Gee, editor of Nature (478, 6 October 2011, page 34, doi:10.1038/478034a),

Paleoanthropologist Exposes Shoddiness of “Early Man” Research - Feb. 6, 2013
Excerpt: The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike.
,,, archaic species concepts and an inadequate fossil record continue to obscure the origins of our genus.

New York Times Inherits the Spin, Republishes Darwinists’ Error-Filled “Answers” to Jonathan Wells’ – 2008 Excerpt: And all three of these textbooks include fanciful drawings of ape-like humans that help to convince students we are no exception to the rule of purposelessness.
Some biology textbooks use other kinds of illustrations ,,,
The Ape To Man Drawings - Another Blatant Deception of Evolution - video
Excerpt: In regards to the pictures of the supposed ancestors of man featured in science journals and the news media Boyce Rensberger wrote in the journal Science the following regarding their highly speculative nature:
"Unfortunately, the vast majority of artist's conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. But a handful of expert natural-history artists begin with the fossil bones of a hominid and work from there…. Much of the reconstruction, however, is guesswork. Bones say nothing about the fleshy parts of the nose, lips, or ears (or eyes). Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.... Hairiness is a matter of pure conjecture."

"National Geographic magazine commissioned four artists to reconstruct a female figure from casts of seven fossil bones thought to be from the same species as skull 1470. One artist drew a creature whose forehead is missing and whose jaws look vaguely like those of a beaked dinosaur. Another artist drew a rather good-looking modern African-American woman with unusually long arms. A third drew a somewhat scrawny female with arms like a gorilla and a face like a Hollywood werewolf. And a fourth drew a figure covered with body hair and climbing a tree, with beady eyes that glare out from under a heavy, gorilla-like brow."
“Behind the Scenes,” National Geographic 197 (March, 2000): 140
picture - these artists "independently" produced the 4 very "different" ancestors you see here

“There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”
William James (1842-1910) The father of modern Psychology
One can see that 'artistic license' for human evolution being played out on the following site.

10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013

Please note, on the preceding site, how the sclera (white of the eye), a uniquely human characteristic, was brought in very early on, in the artists' reconstructions, to make the fossils appear much more human than they actually were, even though the artists making the reconstructions have no clue whatsoever as to what the colors of the eyes, of these supposed transitional fossils, actually were.
Evolution of human eye as a device for communication - Hiromi Kobayashi - Kyoto University, Japan
Excerpt: The uniqueness of human eye morphology among primates illustrates the remarkable difference between human and other primates in the ability to communicate using gaze signals.

Are humans the only primates that cry? - 2003
Excerpt: In sum, if we define crying as tearful sobbing, then we know that humans are the only primates that cry.

"most hominid fossils, even though they serve as basis of endless speculation and elaborate storytelling, are fragments of of jaws and scraps of skulls"
Stephen Jay Gould

The Fragmented Field of Paleoanthropology - July 2012
Excerpt: "alleged restoration of ancient types of man have very little, if any, scientific value and are likely only to mislead the public"
Earnest A. Hooton - physical anthropologist - Harvard University
It's too bad for evolutionists that the cartoons/drawings are not considered concrete scientific evidence, but are in fact considered one the worst forms of biased 'suggestive' evidence there can be, perhaps coming in second to only pure propaganda in its reliability as evidence. But more importantly, it's too bad for our impressionable children that evolutionists shamelessly promote cartoons/drawings as actual evidence in grade school textbooks (See: Jonathan Wells book and video "Icons Of Evolution")

Supplemental note:

“Museum of Comparative Anthropogeny” Human Uniqueness Compared to “Great Apes” (Hundreds of differences listed between humans and ‘great apes’, including mental abilities, with references for each difference listed)

In “Science,” 1975, M-C King and A.C. Wilson were the first to publish a paper estimating the degree of similarity between the human and the chimpanzee genome. This documented the degree of genetic similarity between the two! The study, using a limited data set, found that we were far more similar than was thought possible at the time. Hence, we must be one with apes mustn't we? But…in the second section of their paper King and Wilson honestly describe the deficiencies of such reasoning:
“The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38).
Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38).
Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”

King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems.

David Berlinski - The Devil's Delusion - Page 162&163
Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson - 1975

The Red Ape - Cornelius Hunter - August 2009
Excerpt: "There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle."

Mona Lisa smile: The morphological enigma of human and great ape evolution - 2006
Excerpt: The quality and scope of published documentation and verification of morphological features suggests there is very little in morphology to support a unique common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees.,,,
In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? - July 3, 2013
Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,,
The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal "valves of Kerkring," heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.
'Humans evolved after a female chimpanzee mated with a pig': Extraordinary claim made by American geneticist - November 2013

Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had first supposed it would be:
Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence - July 25, 2013
Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,,
The obvious question for me is, of course, since Darwinists are having such a hard time proving that we did not come from pig-chimp hybrids, what makes Darwinists so sure that we evolved from apes or anything else in the first place? Any reasonable person would realize that if such a dubious theory as the pig-chimp hybrid theory can cause such havoc, for what was suppose to be such well established science, then perhaps the Darwinian theory for human origins is not nearly as strong as Darwinists have dogmatically held it to be in the first place. Some might even hold that such 'flimsiness' would clearly indicate the original theory was rubbish as to being hard science.

It does seem fair to say that the most suggestive piece of evidence, a materialist has for the supposed evolution of humans that is NOT a cartoon and/or drawing, is the existence of the Neanderthal fossils themselves. In fact, even though the Neanderthal fossils are fairly distinct from humans and have a fairly stable history throughout the entire time they are found in the fossil record, the Neanderthal fossils are so morphologically similar to humans that many Young Earth creationists have simply lumped them together with humans in their debates with materialists. Moreover, it is only possible to scientifically prove Neanderthals are truly distinct from humans, as a species/kind, by their genetic 'mtDNA' dissimilarity from humans:
NEANDERTHAL: NO RELATION By Sean Henahan, Access Excellence
Excerpt: "These results indicate that Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) to modern humans," says Dr. Mark Stoneking, associate professor of anthropology at Penn State. "Neanderthals are not our ancestors."----"While the two species may have lived at the same time, Neanderthals did not contribute genetic material to modern humans,"
The following is a fairly comprehensive analysis of many different studies of genetic evidence which separate us from Neanderthals:
Descent of Mankind Theory: Disproved by Molecular Biology - Richard Deem PhD.
Excerpt: Therefore, the most accurate date for the origin of modern humans indicate that the last common ancestor to modern humans must have existed less than 50,000 years ago.,,, The final blow to the idea that humans and Neanderthals interbred was found in a genetic analysis of their chromosomal DNA, published in 2006-2007. These results showed that none of the typical SNPs found in modern humans was present in Neanderthal Y-chromosome DNA.
Then again, this following recent study (May 2010) seemingly overturned the mtDNA evidence and thus some of the genetic evidence could now be interpreted to support the viewpoint that Neanderthals were actually just humans once again:
Humans and Neanderthals Are One - May 2010
Excerpt: In short, the evidence has brought humans and Neanderthals together as mere varieties of the same species, while simultaneously increasing the genetic distance between humans and the great apes.

Study: There's at least some Neanderthal in many of us - May 2010
Excerpt: Humans trace their origins out of Africa into the Middle East and then on to other parts of the world. The genetic relationship with Neanderthals was found in people from Europe, China and Papua-New Guinea, but not people from Africa.

“We found that the mtDNA sites where Neandertals differed from modern man tended to be at mutational hotspots—sites where many modern humans also differ. In addition, at the sites where Neandertals differed from each other, one of them would match the modern human.”
- Dr David DeWitt
This link is in agreement:
"The majority of the Neandertal divergences overlap with those of the humans (Fig. 3), reflecting the fact that Neandertals fall inside the variation of present-day humans."
(A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome, May 2010, sciencemag)
Human evolution: In this episode, the Neanderthals keep us alive - August 2011
Human Variability Can Be Rapid - December 19, 2011
Excerpt: In a new paper in Current Biology (Volume 21, Issue 24, R1002-R1009, 20 December 2011), Lalueza-Fox and Gilbert said:
'Analyses of Neanderthal and Denisovan nuclear and mitochondrial genomes have revealed surprising insights into these archaic humans as well as our own species. The genomes provide a preliminary catalogue of derived amino acids that are specific to all extant modern humans, thus offering insights into the functional differences between the three lineages. In addition, the genomes provide evidence of gene flow between the three lineages after anatomically modern humans left Africa, drastically changing our view of human evolution.'
Instead of “surprising insights,” they should have said “falsifications,” because none of that was believed by paleoanthropologists a decade ago. That’s why it “drastically changed” their view. They differentiated “archaic humans” from “our own species,” but then pointed to “evidence of gene flow” between all three groups. You can’t get gene flow without sex. If members of these groups produced children, they are all the same species according to the biological species concept (i.e., species are populations able to produce fertile offspring).

Researchers decode complete genome of extinct humans (Denisovans) from a fossil finger bone - February 2012
Excerpt: The big news, of course, is that there probably wasn’t a separate Neandertal or Denisovan “species” just a different group of humans.,,, The genetic difference between Neandertals and Denisovans is roughly as great as the maximal level of variation among us modern humans.

Baffling 400,000-Year-Old Clue to Human Origins - December 4, 2013
Excerpt: “Our expectation was that it would be a very early Neanderthal,” Dr. Meyer said.
But the DNA did not match that of Neanderthals. Dr. Meyer then compared it to the DNA of the Denisovans, the (80,000 year old) ancient human lineage that he and his colleagues had discovered in Siberia in 2010. He was shocked to find that it was similar.
“Everybody had a hard time believing it at first,” Dr. Meyer said. “So we generated more and more data to nail it down.”
The extra research confirmed that the DNA belonged on the Denisovan branch of the human family tree.
The new finding is hard to reconcile with the picture of human evolution that has been emerging based on fossils and ancient DNA. Denisovans were believed to be limited to East Asia, and they were not thought to look so Neanderthal-like.,,,
“Now we have to rethink the whole story.”

Dating Between Modern Humans and Neandertals – (Oct. 4, 2012)
Excerpt: The team estimate that Neandertals and modern humans last exchanged genes between 37,000 and 86,000 years ago, well after modern humans appeared outside Africa but potentially before they started spreading across Eurasia. This suggests that Neandertals (or their close relatives) had children with the direct ancestors of present-day people outside Africa.

A Relative from the Tianyuan Cave: Humans Living 40,000 Years Ago Likely Related to Many Present-Day Asians and Native Americans - Jan. 21, 2013
Excerpt: Ancient DNA has revealed that humans living some 40,000 years ago in the area near Beijing were likely related to many present-day Asians and Native Americans.,,,
Humans with morphology similar to present-day humans appear in the fossil record across Eurasia between 40,000 and 50,000 years ago.,,,
In addition, the Tianyuan individual did not carry a larger proportion of Neanderthal or Denisovan DNA than present-day people in the region.
A Draft Sequence of the Neandertal Genome by R. Green, D. Reich, S. Paabo et al. (Science, 7 May 2010: Vol. 328 no. 5979 pp. 710-722, DOI: 10.1126/science.1188021):
Neanderthal Myth and Orwellian Double-Think - Jeffrey Tomkins PhD. - 2012
Excerpt: Modern humans and Neanderthals are essentially genetically identical. Neanderthals are unequivocally fully human based on a number of actual genetic studies using ancient DNA extracted from Neanderthal remains. The DNA data fully confirms the numerous anatomical studies performed on a wide variety of skeletal remains found in diverse geographical regions across Europe and the Middle East. The anatomical data not only shows that Neanderthals had fully human bone structure, but larger brains and more robust features. In fact, to the uncritical observer, they appear superior to modern humans.

So What's the Deal with the Neanderthal, Their Demise? - 2012
Excerpt: There is an emerging segment in academia which is getting more vociferous about the prospect of neither the intellectual nor behavioral capacity of the Neanderthal being significantly different or inferior to that of their 'anatomically modern' human contemporaries.

Neanderthals continue to challenge evolutionary perspectives - David Tyler - Sept. 18, 2013
Excerpt: Neanderthals have long been part of the story that gets presented to children, students, the public and the intelligentsia. But evolutionary theories about Neanderthals have been tested and found wanting. They are not helpful for structuring thought about human history. What is needed now is an atmosphere of academic freedom to propose alternative hypotheses to explain the data associated with the Homo remains.

Neanderthals behaving like us - Dec. 2013
Excerpt: This fascinating insight into community life is worthy of our attention because the group members were Neanderthals. For too long, they have been portrayed as pre-human and have been used to buttress evolutionary stories about the origins of mankind. However, archaeological evidence discussed here (and here) suggests that these stories are embellished with evolutionary spin. The evidence shows that Neanderthals are human cousins and deserve quite a different place in history. Unfortunately, this truth about Neanderthals has been missed in the past because the presumption of evolutionary transformation has constrained the minds of researchers. They illustrate the maxim: "if we don't look for it, we won't find it."
Another recent finding that is related to this theme is that a Neanderthal community in Italy organised their cave in a way that is recognizably human. The punchline is the same: here are "close cousins" that do not deserve to be called pre-human.
As well there is evidence of Neanderthals using personal ornaments like humans:

Neanderthals used feathers as 'personal ornaments' - Sept. 2012

Man Is Man and Ape Is Ape: The Gulf Widens - September 18, 2012

Neanderthal artwork found: “Academic bombshell” obliterates “lesser human” theory? - February 2012

Another interesting point in the evidence is that the gap between Neanderthals and apes is just as great as it is between Man and apes. i.e. The 'missing link', as the leading anthropologists I cited earlier admitted, is still missing!

Though the authors of the 'Evolution of the Genus Homo' paper appear to be thoroughly mystified by the fossil record, they never seem to give up their blind faith in evolution despite the disparity they see first hand in the fossil record. In spite of their philosophical bias, I have to hand it to them for being fairly honest with the evidence though. I especially like how the authors draw out this following 'what it means to be human' distinction in their paper:
Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009
Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”,,,,
“Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
We have some archeological evidence that this 'unusual ability' of humans was with humans from the start:
Best Cave Art Is Still the Oldest - May 2012
Excerpt: The artwork on the walls of Chauvet Cave is unequalled in Paleolithic art, superior even to the better-known works of Lascaux dated much later. Evolutionists had expected that cave art would progress from simple to complex as man’s cognitive abilities evolved, but Chauvet challenged that idea by showing that the oldest was by far the best. The authors of the paper were astonished at its quality:
Of related note: These following studies offer strong support that Humans are extremely unique in this 'advanced information capacity' when compared to animals:
Darwin's mistake: explaining the discontinuity between human and nonhuman minds. - 2008
Excerpt: Over the last quarter century, the dominant tendency in comparative cognitive psychology has been to emphasize the similarities between human and nonhuman minds and to downplay the differences as "one of degree and not of kind" (Darwin 1871).,,, To wit, there is a significant discontinuity in the degree to which human and nonhuman animals are able to approximate the higher-order, systematic, relational capabilities of a physical symbol system (PSS) (Newell 1980). We show that this symbolic-relational discontinuity pervades nearly every domain of cognition and runs much deeper than even the spectacular scaffolding provided by language or culture alone can explain,,,
Many Studies on the Uniqueness of the Human mind:

In fact Darwinism has a very dark history of being the root cause of 'pseudo-scientific racism':
"At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, even than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as now between the negro or Australian and the gorilla"
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man
Yet contrary to what Darwin presupposed, it is found that the differences between individuals in a population are far greater than differences between populations:
Genetic Similarities Within and Between Human Populations – 2007
Excerpt: The proportion of human genetic variation due to differences between populations is modest, and individuals from different populations can be genetically more similar than individuals from the same population. Yet sufficient genetic data can permit accurate classification of individuals into populations.

Race in a Genetic World – May-June 2008
Excerpt: ,,85 percent occurs within geographically distinct groups, while 15 percent or less occurs between them. (Agassiz 1972)
Darwin’s impact—the bloodstained legacy of evolution by Raymond Hall

Summary Of Evidence For Human Evolution & The Racism Evolution Engenders – Don Patton – video

In fact the 'pseudo-scientific racism' Darwinism engendered was so insidious, and obvious, that Darwinism can be traced back as a primary root cause for the NAZI holocaust:

From Darwin to Hitler - video

The Dark Legacy Of Charles Darwin – 150 Years Later – video
Women were biologically and intellectually inferior to men, according to Darwin. The intelligence gap that Darwinists believed existed between males and females was not minor, but of a level that caused some evolutionists to classify the sexes as two distinct psychological species, males as Homo frontalis and females as Homo parietalis. In The Descent of Man, Darwin argued -
“The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes is shown by man’s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can a woman—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands.”
In The Origin of Species, natural selection was developed along-side of sexual selection. Males were like animal breeders, shaping women to their liking by sexual selection on the one hand along with the recognition men were exposed to far greater selective pressures than women, especially in war and competition for mates, food, and clothing on the other hand. From Darwin’s perspective, males have evolved further than females from a Darwinian perspective.
As Jerry Bergman explains, “Natural selection would consequently operate far more actively on males, producing male superiority in virtually all skill areas.”
It is also interesting to point out that the materialistic philosophy has an extremely difficult time assigning any proper value to humans in the first place, i.e. Just how do you derive value for a person from a philosophy that maintains transcendent values are illusory?:
How much is my body worth?
Excerpt: The U.S. Bureau of Chemistry and Soils invested many a hard-earned tax dollar in calculating the chemical and mineral composition of the human body,,,,Together, all of the above (chemicals and minerals) amounts to less than one dollar!
The abundances of some chemical elements in the nonliving world (the Earth's crust) compared with their abundances in the tissues of an animal - graph

Whereas Theism, particularly Christianity, has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how much humans are worth, since infinite Almighty God has shown us how much we mean to him:
John 3:16
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.

Matthew 16:26
And what do you benefit if you gain the whole world but lose your own soul? Is anything worth more than your soul?
MercyMe – Beautiful - music

There is simply no way to derive any true meaning and value for life without God, as Dr. Craig makes clear in the following video:

The absurdity of life without God (1 of 3) by William Lane Craig – video

Besides the biased presentation of the 'imaginary' fossil record for human evolution, its seems that Darwinists have also, intentionally or not, severely twisted the genetic evidence to try to make a case that humans evolved from apes:

The Mismeasure of Man: Why Popular Ideas about Human-Chimp Comparisons Are Misleading or Wrong - Ann Gauger March 10, 2014
Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity - Sternberg - 2009
Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.

Does Genome Evidence Support Human-Ape Common Ancestry? - Casey Luskin - March 13, 2014 (references on page)
Excerpt: (1) Dr. Venema argues that high human-chimp genetic similarity is at least 95%, and that this shows common our ancestry.
Response: Dr. Venema overstates the degree of human-chimp similarity and seems to disregard the obvious the possibility of common design for human-chimp functional genetic similarities.,,,
(2) Dr. Venema argues that redundancy in codon-use (e.g., reuse of synonymous codons) is far in excess of what is required for functionality, suggesting common ancestry.
Response: Dr. Venema's argument depends on the standard evolutionary presumption that synonymous mutations are phenotypically equivalent. This is a good example of how evolutionary biologists use molecular biology that is outdated; while synonymous codons do encode the same amino acids, they can have different, and important phenotypic or functional effects relating to gene expression.,,,
(3) He argues that the highly similar spatial organization of the genes (synteny) across different species suggests common ancestry.
Response: Again, Dr. Venema's molecular biology is outdated. He assumes the ordering of genes (or chromosomal structure) is functionally unimportant, but molecular biology has discovered that nothing could be further from the truth. As the revolution in epigenetics has taken hold, molecular biologists now know that the structure of chromosomes, and their 3-dimensional arrangement(s) within a cell, are important parts of genomic regulation.,,,
(4) Dr. Venema argues that shared pseudogenes suggest common ancestry.
Response: Here Dr. Venema is assuming that what we don't understand is functionless. in this case, we have lots of evidence that many pseudogenes -- including pseudogenes that are prominent examples used by ID-critics -- are likely functional.,,,
in each of these four areas, Dr. Venema's argument depends on the presumption that the similarity between humans and chimps (whether [1] protein sequence or overall genome similarity; [2] similar use of synonymous codons; [3] synteny; and [4] shared "pseudogenes") is functionally unimportant--i.e., it's a "junk" property of the genome. And in each of these four areas, the latest findings of molecular biology show that the property is not "junk" or unimportant, but in fact represents newly discovered important functional elements of molecular biology.
As time goes on, ID's predictions are being confirmed. Meanwhile, Darwinian presumptions -- that many aspects of genomes exist for no reason other than "they were put there by unguided evolutionary mechanisms" -- are turning out to be wrong.

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013
Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.

Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. - December 20, 2013
Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%)
2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk)
3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function.
Moreover, Dr. Tomkins is working to provide a much more detailed picture of the drastic genetic differences between chimps and man:
Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
Excerpt: In 2013, I published a research paper in which chimpanzee chromosomes were sequentially sliced into different sets of small pieces so that the algorithm could optimally compare them to human chromosomes. In so doing, I found that the chimpanzee genome was only about 70 percent similar to the human genome overall.7
More research is needed to show specifically how the new wealth of publicly available ENCODE data can be used beyond basic studies of human-chimp DNA similarity—incorporating lincRNAs and vlincRNAs to further highlight human uniqueness. Research using three large datasets produced by the ENCODE project is now underway at ICR for the purpose of addressing these questions. In a concurrent study, I am also comparing human protein-coding regions to those in chimpanzees. In combination, these new analyses will provide a much more detailed picture of what makes humans unique and will further demonstrate we are not evolved apes.
Here is a paper which, though technical, shows that the modern genetic evidence we now have actually supports Adam and Eve. Moreover, the evidence it presents from the latest genetic research is completely inexplicable to neo-Darwinism, i.e. neo-Darwinism, once again, completely falls apart upon rigid scrutiny; (and although I don’t agree with the extreme 6000 year Young Earth model used as a starting presumption in the paper for deriving the graphs, the model, none-the-less, can be amended quite comfortably to a longer time period. Which I, personally, think provides a much more ‘comfortable’ fit to the overall body of evidence)

The Non-Mythical Adam and Eve! - Refuting errors by Francis Collins and BioLogos

CMI has a excellent video of the preceding paper by Dr. Carter, that makes the technical aspects of the paper much easier to understand;

The Non Mythical Adam and Eve (Dr Robert Carter) - video

Moreover this genetic evidence for 'Adam and Eve', elucidated by Dr. Carter, is corroborated by other lines of genetic evidence:

Human Evolution? - The Compelling Genetic Evidence For Adam and Eve
Dr. Fazale Rana - video

Dr. Fazale Rana defends the integrity of the genetic evidence for Adam and Eve, on the following site, from some pretty high level criticism:

Were They Real? The Scientific Case for Adam and Eve by Fazale Rana - November 2010

Genetic Adam and Eve could have been contemporaries, scientists say - August 2013

This following study, from fossil evidence, corroborates the 'recent', circa 50,000 year ago, sudden origin of man that was put forth by Dr. Rana:
Early Man Stories Evolve - December 2011
Excerpt: According to a new paper in Nature,2 the earliest evidence for anatomically modern humans in Europe is now dated at 43,000 years. ,, Problem is, anatomically modern humans are dated in Africa at up to 60,000 years old, according to Paul Mellars commenting on this paper in the same issue.3 That means that people just like us (for all practical purposes) couldn’t find Europe on the map for 17,000 years,,,
Human Evolution - Genetic Adam And Eve - Hugh Ross - video
The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence - John Sanford
Excerpt: Given the high mutation rate within mitochondria and the large geographic separation among the individuals within our dataset, we did not expect to find the original human mitochondrial sequence to be so well preserved within modern populations. With the exception of a very few ambiguous nucleotides, the consensus sequence clearly represents Eve's mitochondrial DNA sequence.
Of related interest:

Speaking of Adam and Eve: Study of Languages Supports Biblical Account of Human Origins - Fazale Rana - August 2011

Another strong piece of genetic evidence, for the recent origin of man, is that scientists find the differences of the 'younger' human races (Chinese, Europeans, American Indians, etc.. etc..) are losing genetic information when compared to the original race of humans which is thought to have migrated out of east Africa some 50,000 years ago.
"We found an enormous amount of diversity within and between the African populations, and we found much less diversity in non-African populations," Tishkoff told attendees today (Jan. 22) at the annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Anaheim. "Only a small subset of the diversity in Africa is found in Europe and the Middle East, and an even narrower set is found in American Indians." Tishkoff; Andrew Clark, Penn State; Kenneth Kidd, Yale University; Giovanni Destro-Bisol, University "La Sapienza," Rome, and Himla Soodyall and Trefor Jenkins, WITS University, South Africa, looked at three locations on DNA samples from 13 to 18 populations in Africa and 30 to 45 populations in the remainder of the world.-

"What's remarkable about this is how closely everyone is related to each other. On a genealogical level, everyone in Europe traces back to nearly the same set of ancestors only a thousand years ago," .... "...such close kinship likely exists in other parts of the world as well."
(Genes show one big European family, May 7, 2013)

New analysis provides fuller picture of human expansion from Africa - October 22, 2012
Excerpt: A new, comprehensive review of humans' anthropological and genetic records gives the most up-to-date story of the "Out of Africa" expansion that occurred about 45,000 to 60,000 years ago.
This expansion, detailed by three Stanford geneticists, had a dramatic effect on human genetic diversity, which persists in present-day populations. As a small group of modern humans migrated out of Africa into Eurasia and the Americas, their genetic diversity was substantially reduced.

"...but Natural Selection reduces genetic information and we know this from all the Genetic Population studies that we have..."
Maciej Marian Giertych - Population Geneticist - member of the European Parliament - EXPELLED

Daily thought: blue eyes and other gene mutations, April 25, 2013
Excerpt: "Research on blue-eyes has led many scientist to further affirm that humans are truly mere variations of the same origin. About 8% of the world's total population has blue eyes so blue eyes are fairly rare. In fact, blue eyes are actually a gene mutation that scientist have researched and found to have happened when the OCA2 gene "turned off the ability to produce brown eyes."

Excerpt: The melanin in the skin is produced by melanocytes, which are found in the basal layer of the epidermis. Although, in general, human beings possess a similar concentration of melanocytes in their skin, the melanocytes in some individuals and ethnic groups more frequently or less frequently express the melanin-producing genes, thereby conferring a greater or lesser concentration of skin melanin. Some individual animals and humans have very little or no melanin synthesis in their bodies, a condition known as albinism.
I wonder what Hitler would have thought of all those studies?

This next study, which supports the principle of genetic entropy, would have really messed with Hitler's head for his plans of evolving a 'master race';
Are brains shrinking to make us smarter? - February 2011
Excerpt: Human brains have shrunk over the past 30,000 years,

If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? - January 20, 2011
Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
“Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”

Study suggests humans are slowly but surely losing intellectual and emotional abilities - November 12, 2012
Excerpt: "Human intelligence and behavior require optimal functioning of a large number of genes, which requires enormous evolutionary pressures to maintain. A provocative hypothesis published in a recent set of Science and Society pieces published in the Cell Press journal Trends in Genetics suggests that we are losing our intellectual and emotional capabilities because the intricate web of genes endowing us with our brain power is particularly susceptible to mutations and that these mutations are not being selected against in our modern society."

Is Human Intellect Degenerating? - February 19, 2013
Excerpt: A recent study of the Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM) database, although incomplete, indicates that about half of all human genetic diseases have a neurologic component, [6], frequently including some aspect of [intellectual deficiency], consistent with the notion that many genes are required for intellectual and emotional function. The reported mutations have been severe alleles, often de novo mutations that reduce fecundity. However, each of these genes will also be subject to dozens if not hundreds of weaker mutations that lead to reduced function, but would not significantly impair fecundity, and hence could accumulate with time...

Are Wisdom Teeth (Third Molars) Vestiges of Human Evolution? by Jerry Bergman - December 1, 1998
Excerpt: Curtis found that both predynastic Egyptians and Nubians rarely had wisdom teeth problems, but they often existed in persons living in later periods of history. He concluded that the maxillary sinus of the populations he compared were similar and attributed the impactions he found to diet and also disuse causing atrophy of the jaws which resulted in a low level of teeth attrition. Dahlberg in a study of American Indians found that mongoloid peoples have a higher percentage of agenesis of third molars then do other groups and few persons in primitive societies had wisdom teeth problems. As Dahlberg notes, third molars were ‘very useful in primitive societies’ to chew their coarse diet.
This following study is interesting in that it shows the principle of Genetic Entropy being obeyed for the estimated 60,000 year old anatomically modern humans found in Australia:
Ancient DNA and the origin of modern humans: John H. Relethford
Excerpt: Adcock et al. clearly demonstrate the actual extinction of an ancient mtDNA lineage belonging to an anatomically modern human, because this lineage is not found in living Australians. Although the fossil evidence provides evidence of the continuity of modern humans over the past 60,000 years,,,
The author of the preceding paper offered a evolutionary 'just so story' for how this loss of genetic information occurred. Yet, the result clearly falls within what we would expect from a Genetic Entropy perspective and doesn't require any bending of the evidence to fit the principle of Genetic Entropy.

Also of note, body plans are not even encoded solely by the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance and 'epigenetic' studies.

Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video
entire video:
The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism - Michael J. Denton - 2013
Excerpt: Cell form ,,,Karsenti comments that despite the attraction of the (genetic) blueprint model there are no “simple linear chains of causal events that link genes to phenotypes” [77: p. 255]. And wherever there is no simple linear causal chain linking genes with phenotypes,,,—at any level in the organic hierarchy, from cells to body plans—the resulting form is bound to be to a degree epigenetic and emergent, and cannot be inferred from even the most exhaustive analysis of the genes.,,,
To this author’s knowledge, to date the form of no individual cell has been shown to be specified in detail in a genomic blueprint. As mentioned above, between genes and mature cell form there is a complex hierarchy of self-organization and emergent phenomena, rendering cell form profoundly epigenetic.

A challenge to the genetic interpretation of biology - Feb 19, 2014
Excerpt: When a gene, a string of bases on the DNA molecule, is deployed, it is first transcribed and then translated into a peptide – a string of amino acids. To give rise to biological properties it needs to "fold" into a protein.
This process consumes energy and is therefore governed by the 2nd law, but also by the environment in which the folding takes place. These two factors mean that there is no causal relationship between the original gene coding sequence and the biological activity of the protein.
Is there any empirical evidence to support this?
Yes, a Nordic study of twins conducted in 2000 showed there was no evidence that cancer was a "genetic" disease – that is – that genes play no role in the causation of cancer. A wider international study involving 50,000 identical twin pairs published in 2012, showed that this conclusion applied to other common disease as well.
Refutation of Genetic Reductionism (Central Dogma)
The World’s Toughest Bacterium - 2002
Excerpt: “When subjected to high levels of radiation, the Deinococcus genome is reduced to fragments,” (…) “RecA proteins may play role in finding overlapping fragments and splicing them together.”

Extreme Genome Repair - 2009
Excerpt: If its naming had followed, rather than preceded, molecular analyses of its DNA, the extremophile bacterium Deinococcus radiodurans might have been called Lazarus. After shattering of its 3.2 Mb genome into 20–30 kb pieces by desiccation or a high dose of ionizing radiation, D. radiodurans miraculously reassembles its genome such that only 3 hr later fully reconstituted nonrearranged chromosomes are present, and the cells carry on, alive as normal.,,,
How can RecA proteins reconstruct fragmented DNA? If the Genetic/Molecular reductionism model of neo-Darwinism were actually true, how can it possibly ‘know’ the correct sequence?
In Embryo Development, Non-DNA Information Is at Least as Important as DNA - Jonathan Wells - May 2012
Excerpt: Evidence shows that non-DNA developmental information can be inherited in several ways. For example, it can be inherited through chromatin modifications, which affect gene expression without altering underlying DNA sequences. Another example is cytoplasmic inheritance, which involves cytoskeletal patterns and localization of intracellular molecules. Still another example is cortical inheritance, which involves membrane patterns.

“Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005
Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory.

Component placement optimization in the brain - 1994
As he comments [106], “To current limits of accuracy ... the actual placement appears to be the best of all possible layouts; this constitutes strong evidence of perfect optimization.,, among about 40,000,000 alternative layout orderings, the actual ganglion placement in fact requires the least total connection length.
The Types: A Persistent Structuralist Challenge to Darwinian Pan-Selectionism - Michael J. Denton - 2013
The Case Against Molecular Reductionism - Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton - video
New Insights Into How (Adult) Stem Cells Determine What Tissue to Become - August 2010
Excerpt: Within 24 hours of culturing adult human stem cells on a new type of matrix, University of Michigan researchers were able to make predictions about how the cells would differentiate, or what type of tissue they would become.,,, "Our research confirms that mechanical factors are as important as the chemical factors regulating differentiation," Fu said. "The mechanical aspects have, until now, been largely ignored by stem cell biologists."

Electricity Forms Your Heart - July 2010
Excerpt: “The direction of growth and orientation of various cell types in tissue culture can be influenced by externally applied electric fields.” They added, “Furthermore, endogenous [inside organism] electric currents exist in a variety of tissues and have been hypothesized to influence cell migration and shape.”

The face of a frog: Time-lapse video reveals never-before-seen bioelectric pattern - July 2011
Excerpt: For the first time, Tufts University biologists have reported that bioelectrical signals are necessary for normal head and facial formation in an organism and have captured that process in a time-lapse video that reveals never-before-seen patterns of visible bioelectrical signals outlining where eyes, nose, mouth, and other features will appear in an embryonic tadpole.,,, "When a frog embryo is just developing, before it gets a face, a pattern for that face lights up on the surface of the embryo,",,, "We believe this is the first time such patterning has been reported for an entire structure, not just for a single organ. I would never have predicted anything like it. It's a jaw dropper.",,,

An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011
Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.”
The (Electric) Face of a Frog - video

Phonon/photon connection to 3-D structure would go a long way towards explaining ‘form’ in life
What are Biophotons?
Excerpt: According to a leading researcher of biophotons, German biophysicist Fritz-Albert Popp, light is constantly being absorbed and remitted by DNA molecules within each cell's nucleus. These biophotons create a dynamic, coherent web of light. A system that could be responsible for chemical reactions within the cells, cellular communication throughout the organism, and the overall regulation of the biological system, including embryonic development into a predetermined form.
The laser-like coherence of the biophoton field is a significant attribute, making it a prime candidate for exchanging information in a highly functional, efficient and cooperative fashion, lending credence to the idea that it may be the intelligence factor behind the biological processes. An aspect of, or cousin to consciousness, though this remains speculative.

Let there be sight: Retinal waves wire visual system - video
Video description: A wave of 'spontaneous' activity sweeps across axons of retinal ganglion cells in the mid-brain of a 6-day old mouse. Such activity primes (presages) the developing neuronal circuits, enabling mice to process visual information after they open their eyes, usually between 10 days and two weeks.,,,
The development of animals from a fertilized egg into trillions of intricately connected and specialized cells is the result of a precisely timed expression of genes. However, the Nature paper introduces another necessary factor—a mysterious wave of activity arising in the retina itself that propagates through several regions of the brain. Crair terms this wave an 'emergent property', or a trait possessed by a complex system that cannot be directly traced to its individual parts. This experiment in living, neonatal mice shows that this (preceeding) wave is crucial to the proper wiring not only of the visual system but other brain areas as well.

Entire article here:
Burst of fetal neural activity necessary for vision - October 11, 2012

Not in the Genes: Embryonic Electric Fields - Jonathan Wells - December 2011
Excerpt: although the molecular components of individual sodium-potassium channels may be encoded in DNA sequences, the three-dimensional arrangement of those channels -- which determines the form of the endogenous electric field -- constitutes an independent source of information in the developing embryo.

Optogenetic protein clustering and signaling activation in mammalian cells - January 2013
Excerpt: We report an optogenetic method based on Arabidopsis thaliana cryptochrome 2 for rapid and reversible protein oligomerization in response to blue light. We demonstrated its utility by photoactivating the β-catenin pathway, achieving a transcriptional response higher than that obtained with the natural ligand Wnt3a. We also demonstrated the modularity of this approach by photoactivating RhoA with high spatiotemporal resolution, thereby suggesting a previously unknown mode of activation for this Rho GTPase.

Using light to control cell (protein) clustering - February 12, 2013
Excerpt: Results of the study,, show how blue light can be used as a switch to prompt targeted proteins to accumulate into large clusters.,,
"Our study shows a new use for using energy, in this case light, as a tool to understand and control cellular function. In this study, we demonstrated a new method for turning specific cell signaling pathways on and off with spatial and temporal precision, and use this to help better understand the dynamics of the pathway. At the same time, our technique can be used to control certain cell functions," Kane and Schaffer said.,,,

A look at some systemic properties of self-bioluminescent emission - 2008
Excerpt: There is an apparent consensus in the literature that emission in the deep blue and ultraviolet (150-450nm) is related to DNA / RNA processes while emission in the red and near infrared (600-1000nm) is related to mitochondria and oxidative metabolisms,,,

Watching a protein as it functions - March 15, 2013
Excerpt: When it comes to understanding how proteins perform their amazing cellular feats, it is often the case that the more one knows the less one realizes they know. For decades, biochemists and biophysicists have worked to reveal the relationship between protein structural complexity and function, only to discover more complexity.,,,
A signaling protein usually responds to a messenger or trigger, such as heat or light, by changing its shape, which initiates a regulatory response in the cell. Signaling proteins are all-important to the proper functioning of biological systems, yet the rapid sequence of events, occurring in picoseconds, had, until now, meant that only an approximate idea of what was actually occurring could be obtained.,,
The team identified four major intermediates in the photoisomerization cycle. ,,,
By tracking structurally the PYP photocycle with near-atomic resolution, the team provided a foundation for understanding the general process of signal transduction in proteins at nearly the lightning speed in which they are actually happening.
Finding light to play a regulatory role in turning specific cell signaling pathways on and off is no small thing to consider since cell signaling pathways are extremely complex with many different proteins involved in a highly integrated fashion in each specific pathway,,,

Signaling Pathways and Tables

Cell Signals - 3-D animation video
The mechanism and properties of bio-photon emission and absorption in protein molecules in living systems – May 2012
Excerpt: From the energy spectra, it was determined that the protein molecules could both radiate and absorb bio-photons with wavelengths of less than 3 micrometers and 5–7 micrometers, consistent with the energy level transitions of the excitons.,,,

The Real Bioinformatics Revolution - Proteins and Nucleic Acids 'Singing' to One Another?
Excerpt: the molecules send out specific frequencies of electromagnetic waves which not only enable them to ‘see' and ‘hear' each other, as both photon and phonon modes exist for electromagnetic waves, but also to influence each other at a distance and become ineluctably drawn to each other if vibrating out of phase (in a complementary way).,,, More than 1 000 proteins from over 30 functional groups have been analysed. Remarkably, the results showed that proteins with the same biological function share a single frequency peak while there is no significant peak in common for proteins with different functions; furthermore the characteristic peak frequency differs for different biological functions.,,, The same results were obtained when regulatory DNA sequences were analysed.

Biophotons - The Light In Our Cells - Marco Bischof - March 2005
Excerpt page 2: The Coherence of Biophotons: ,,, Biophotons consist of light with a high degree of order, in other words, biological laser light. Such light is very quiet and shows an extremely stable intensity, without the fluctuations normally observed in light. Because of their stable field strength, its waves can superimpose, and by virtue of this, interference effects become possible that do not occur in ordinary light. Because of the high degree of order, the biological laser light is able to generate and keep order and to transmit information in the organism.

Symphony of Life, Revealed: New Imaging Technique Captures Vibrations of Proteins, Tiny Motions Critical to Human Life - Jan. 16, 2014
Excerpt: To observe the protein vibrations, Markelz' team relied on an interesting characteristic of proteins: The fact that they vibrate at the same frequency as the light they absorb.
This is analogous to the way wine glasses tremble and shatter when a singer hits exactly the right note. Markelz explained: Wine glasses vibrate because they are absorbing the energy of sound waves, and the shape of a glass determines what pitches of sound it can absorb. Similarly, proteins with different structures will absorb and vibrate in response to light of different frequencies.
So, to study vibrations in lysozyme, Markelz and her colleagues exposed a sample to light of different frequencies and polarizations, and measured the types of light the protein absorbed.
This technique, , allowed the team to identify which sections of the protein vibrated under normal biological conditions. The researchers were also able to see that the vibrations endured over time, challenging existing assumptions.
"If you tap on a bell, it rings for some time, and with a sound that is specific to the bell. This is how the proteins behave," Markelz said. "Many scientists have previously thought a protein is more like a wet sponge than a bell: If you tap on a wet sponge, you don't get any sustained sound."

Are humans really beings of light?
Excerpt: Dr. Popp exclaims, "We now know, today, that man is essentially a being of light.",,, "There are about 100,000 chemical reactions happening in every cell each second. The chemical reaction can only happen if the molecule which is reacting is excited by a photon... Once the photon has excited a reaction it returns to the field and is available for more reactions... We are swimming in an ocean of light."

The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010
Excerpt: So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.,,, So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used.,,, Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.

To cap or not to cap: Scientists find new RNA phenomenon that challenges dogma - August 27, 2012 by Emily Caldwell
Excerpt: ,,, Until now, scientists have believed that once an mRNA is no longer needed to make protein, the cap comes off and the molecule is degraded, its job complete. But Schoenberg's lab discovered in 2009 that some mRNAs that were thought to be degraded were instead still present in the cell, but they were missing part of their sequence and had caps placed back on the newly formed ends. Because these mRNAs were in the cytoplasm, the changes had to happen there rather than inside the nucleus.,,,
"We have always thought that one gene would give an mRNA for one kind of protein. But what we have found makes us wonder if multiple proteins could be made from each of the messenger RNAs that undergo decapping and recapping in the cytoplasm," Schoenberg said.,,,
"It wasn't random. It was very specific," Schoenberg said. "There are specific families of mRNAs that are regulated in this way, and that has ramifications for how proteins are expressed and regulated.",,,
For now, these scientists can only speculate about what this unexpected biological process really means.,,,

Gene Switches Do More Than Flip 'On' or 'Off': Can Exhibit Much More Complex Binding Behavior - April 2012
Excerpt: In addition to a stable binding state (on or off), the team demonstrates a state that they call "treadmilling," where no forward transcription process is occurring. Within this process, they hypothesize the existence of a molecular "clutch" that converts treadmilling to a stable bound state, moving the transcription process forward to completion to turn the gene on.
Lieb explains, "This discovery is exciting because we developed a new way to measure and calculate how long a protein is associated with all of the different genes it regulates. This is important because it represents a new step in the process of how genes are regulated. And with every new step, there are opportunities for new mechanisms of regulation." Lieb is director of the Carolina Center for Genome Sciences. He adds, "We found that proteins that bind in the stable state are associated with high levels of gene transcription.
This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show 'exceedingly rare' beneficial morphological changes from mutations to the DNA code.
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer
"Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video

Dr. Stephen Meyer comments at the end of the preceding video,,,
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’
Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009)
Darwin's Doubt narrated by Paul Giem - The Origin of Body Plans - video
Book Review (of Darwin's Doubt): Intelligent Design or Unintelligent Design? by Terry Scambray // New Oxford Review, October 2013
Excerpt: As Meyer writes, the neo-Darwinism mechanism of mutation and natural selection, “does not account for either the origin of the genetic or the epigenetic information”,,,
That is, developing complex bio-chemicals and then in the most exacting and intricate way, engineering their information processes to perform in unimaginably complex, coordinated and purposeful genetic and extra genetic ways would have to have taken place. As Meyer writes, “the probability of generating just one gene from all the bacteria (and other organisms) that have ever lived on earth is just 1 in 10 trillion, trillion, trillion. “
“Time & chance”, the makers of life according to Darwin, need not apply as credible candidates for such a task.,,,

(Read more here)
This following peer-reviewed paper holds that there is a 'irreducible organizational complexity' between genetic (digital) information and epigenetic (analog/structural) information:
Refereed scientific article on DNA argues for irreducible complexity - October 2, 2013
Excerpt: This paper published online this summer is a true mind-blower showing the irreducible organizational complexity (author’s description) of DNA analog and digital information, that genes are not arbitrarily positioned on the chromosome etc.,,
,,,First, the digital information of individual genes (semantics) is dependent on the the intergenic regions (as we know) which is like analog information (syntax). Both types of information are co-dependent and self-referential but you can’t get syntax from semantics. As the authors state, “thus the holistic approach assumes self-referentiality (completeness of the contained information and full consistency of the different codes) as an irreducible organizational complexity of the genetic regulation system of any cell”. In short, the linear DNA sequence contains both types of information. Second, the paper links local DNA structure, to domains, to the overall chromosome configuration as a dynamic system keying off the metabolic signals of the cell. This implies that the position and organization of genes on the chromosome is not arbitrary,,,
This following videos and article add clarity for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned:

Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information

Intelligent Design: The ambitious aim of Douglas Axe (Biologic Institute) - video

Here are some more excellent articles for explaining exactly why the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism (aka; the Central Dogma of the Modern Synthesis) is inadequate:
Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010
Excerpt: The standard doctrine has it that functionally important sequences, precisely because they are important to the organism, will generally be conserved across considerable evolutionary distances. But the emerging point of view holds that architecture can matter as much as sequence. As bioinformatics researcher Elliott Margulies and his team at the National Human Genome Research Institute put it, “the molecular shape of DNA is under selection” — a shape that can be maintained in its decisive aspects despite changes in the underlying sequence. It’s not enough, they write, to analyze “the order of A’s, C’s, G’s, and T’s,” because “DNA is a molecule with a three-dimensional structure.”[14] Elementary as the point may seem, it’s leading to a considerable reallocation of investigative resources.

Why the 'Gene' Concept Holds Back Evolutionary Thinking - James Shapiro - 11/30/2012
Excerpt: The Century of the Gene. In a 1948 Scientific American article, soon-to-be Nobel Laureate George Beadle wrote: "genes are the basic units of all living things.",,,
This notion of the genome as a collection of discrete gene units prevailed when the neo-Darwinian "Modern Synthesis" emerged in the pre-DNA 1940s. Some prominent theorists even proposed that evolution could be defined simply as a change over time in the frequencies of different gene forms in a population.,,,
The basic issue is that molecular genetics has made it impossible to provide a consistent, or even useful, definition of the term "gene." In March 2009, I attended a workshop at the Santa Fe Institute entitled "Complexity of the Gene Concept." Although we had a lot of smart people around the table, we failed as a group to agree on a clear meaning for the term.
The modern concept of the genome has no basic units. It has literally become "systems all the way down." There are piecemeal coding sequences, expression signals, splicing signals, regulatory signals, epigenetic formatting signals, and many other "DNA elements" (to use the neutral ENCODE terminology) that participate in the multiple functions involved in genome expression, replication, transmission, repair and evolution.,,,
Conventional thinkers may claim that molecular data only add details to a well-established evolutionary paradigm. But the diehard defenders of orthodoxy in evolutionary biology are grievously mistaken in their stubbornness. DNA and molecular genetics have brought us to a fundamentally new conceptual understanding of genomes, how they are organized and how they function.
Sir Paul Nurse: Organisms are information networks - video
Biology faces a quantum leap into the incomprehensible - 2010
Excerpt: Understanding how the different parts of the body process information and then distribute it is the next task facing modern biology, says Sir Paul Nurse,,, How does homeostasis – the mechanism by which an organism maintains its biological status quo – work? And how do cells communicate with each other?
Understanding these networks will reveal "a strange, counterintuitive world", insists Nurse,

Sir Paul Nurse won the 2001 Nobel prize for physiology for his work on the role of DNA in cell division and took up the presidency of the Royal Society at the end of 2010.

What Do Organisms Mean? Stephen L. Talbott - Winter 2011
Excerpt: Harvard biologist Richard Lewontin once described how you can excise the developing limb bud from an amphibian embryo, shake the cells loose from each other, allow them to reaggregate into a random lump, and then replace the lump in the embryo. A normal leg develops. Somehow the form of the limb as a whole is the ruling factor, redefining the parts according to the larger pattern. Lewontin went on to remark: "Unlike a machine whose totality is created by the juxtaposition of bits and pieces with different functions and properties, the bits and pieces of a developing organism seem to come into existence as a consequence of their spatial position at critical moments in the embryo’s development. Such an object is less like a machine than it is like a language whose elements... take unique meaning from their context.[3]",,,

Excerpt: “If you think air traffic controllers have a tough job guiding planes into major airports or across a crowded continental airspace, consider the challenge facing a human cell trying to position its proteins”. A given cell, he notes, may make more than 10,000 different proteins, and typically contains more than a billion protein molecules at any one time. “Somehow a cell must get all its proteins to their correct destinations — and equally important, keep these molecules out of the wrong places”. And further: “It’s almost as if every mRNA [an intermediate between a gene and a corresponding protein] coming out of the nucleus knows where it’s going” (Travis 2011),,,
Further, the billion protein molecules in a cell are virtually all capable of interacting with each other to one degree or another; they are subject to getting misfolded or “all balled up with one another”; they are critically modified through the attachment or detachment of molecular subunits, often in rapid order and with immediate implications for changing function; they can wind up inside large-capacity “transport vehicles” headed in any number of directions; they can be sidetracked by diverse processes of degradation and recycling... and so on without end. Yet the coherence of the whole is maintained.
The question is indeed, then, “How does the organism meaningfully dispose of all its molecules, getting them to the right places and into the right interactions?”
The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary.
Two systems biologists, one from the Max Delbrück Center for Molecular Medicine in Germany and one from Harvard Medical School, frame one part of the problem this way:
"The human body is formed by trillions of individual cells. These cells work together with remarkable precision, first forming an adult organism out of a single fertilized egg, and then keeping the organism alive and functional for decades. To achieve this precision, one would assume that each individual cell reacts in a reliable, reproducible way to a given input, faithfully executing the required task. However, a growing number of studies investigating cellular processes on the level of single cells revealed large heterogeneity even among genetically identical cells of the same cell type. (Loewer and Lahav 2011)",,,
And then we hear that all this meaningful activity is, somehow, meaningless or a product of meaninglessness. This, I believe, is the real issue troubling the majority of the American populace when they are asked about their belief in evolution. They see one thing and then are told, more or less directly, that they are really seeing its denial. Yet no one has ever explained to them how you get meaning from meaninglessness — a difficult enough task once you realize that we cannot articulate any knowledge of the world at all except in the language of meaning.,,,

Intelligent Design Might Be Wrong, But Not the Way You Think by Stephen H. Webb - February 2014
Excerpt: Darwin, like all moderns, believed that matter was something particular, that matter is composed of small bits of stuff called atoms, and thus it can be pushed from behind, as it were, without being pulled from beyond, by form.

(Dual Coding) RNA Shows Design, Too - February 4, 2014
Excerpt: A paper in Nature describes how information is stored not only in RNA's base sequence, but in its folds. Because RNA has more degrees of freedom, it can take on a wide variety of forms not possible for DNA. "RNA has a dual role as an informational molecule and a direct effector of biological tasks. The latter function is enabled by RNA's ability to adopt complex secondary and tertiary folds and thus has motivated extensive computational and experimental efforts for determining RNA structures," the authors begin (emphasis added). In their conclusion, they say, "We identify hundreds of specific mRNA regions that are highly structured in vivo, and we show for three examples that these structures affect protein expression."
In other words, the structure, not just the sequence, carries functional information. "Our studies provide an excellent set of candidate regions, among the truly enormous number of structured regions seen in vitro, for exploring the regulatory role of structured mRNAs.",,,

Integration of syntactic and semantic properties of the DNA code reveals chromosomes as thermodynamic machines converting energy into information - Dec. 2013
Excerpt: Compelling evidence suggests that the DNA, in addition to the digital information of the linear genetic code (the semantics), encodes equally important continuous, or analog, information that specifies the structural dynamics and configuration (the syntax) of the polymer. These two DNA information types are intrinsically coupled in the primary sequence organisation, and this coupling is directly relevant to regulation of the genetic function.
The Intelligent Design position, besides syntax and semantics being irreducibly complex, as the preceding article indicates, (i.e. like in a book),,,
A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature – Wiker and Witt
Excerpt: They focus instead on what “Methinks it is like a weasel” really means. In isolation, in fact, it means almost nothing. Who said it? Why? What does the “it” refer to? What does it reveal about the characters? How does it advance the plot? In the context of the entire play, and of Elizabethan culture, this brief line takes on significance of surprising depth. The whole is required to give meaning to the part. (and yet the part is required to convey that meaning)
,,,is that syntax (i.e. structural dynamics and configuration) is primary over the semantics (i.e. the digital information of the linear genetic code). i.e. It is impossible for a part to stand in isolation to a prior and meaningful whole existing beforehand. CS Lewis, in his unusually crisp way of putting things, puts the syntax/semantics problem for materialistic atheists this way:
“Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”
CS Lewis – Mere Christianity
Pastor Joe Boot puts the insurmountable syntax/semantics problem for reductive materialism this way:
“If you have no God, then you have no design plan for the universe. You have no prexisting structure to the universe.,, As the ancient Greeks held, like Democritus and others, the universe is flux. It’s just matter in motion. Now on that basis all you are confronted with is innumerable brute facts that are unrelated pieces of data. They have no meaningful connection to each other because there is no overall structure. There’s no design plan. It’s like my kids do ‘join the dots’ puzzles. It’s just dots, but when you join the dots there is a structure, and a picture emerges. Well, the atheists is without that (final picture). There is no preestablished pattern (to connect the facts given atheism).”
Pastor Joe Boot – Defending the Christian Faith – 13:20 minute mark of video
i.e. it is impossible for 'semantic' parts to give rise to a meaningful 'syntax' whole without a that prior meaningful whole (an architectural plan) giving definition and direction to the parts in the first place!
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011
Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,,

With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011
Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,,

Not Junk After All—Conclusion - August 29, 2013
Excerpt: Many scientists have pointed out that the relationship between the genome and the organism — the genotype-phenotype mapping — cannot be reduced to a genetic program encoded in DNA sequences. Atlan and Koppel wrote in 1990 that advances in artificial intelligence showed that cellular operations are not controlled by a linear sequence of instructions in DNA but by a “distributed multilayer network” [150]. According to Denton and his co-workers, protein folding appears to involve formal causes that transcend material mechanisms [151], and according to Sternberg this is even more evident at higher levels of the genotype-phenotype mapping [152].

Revisiting the Central Dogma - David Tyler - Nov. 9, 2012
Excerpt: "The past decade, however, has witnessed a rapid accumulation of evidence that challenges the linear logic of the central dogma (DNA makes RNA makes Protein). Four previously unassailable beliefs about the genome - that it is static throughout the life of the organism; that it is invariant between cell type and individual; that changes occurring in somatic cells cannot be inherited (also known as Lamarckian evolution); and that necessary and sufficient information for cellular function is contained in the gene sequence - have all been called into question in the last few years.",,
Undoubtedly, the trigger for change has been the discovery of extraordinary complexity in cellular processes as revealed by systems biology research. It is now necessary to refer to networks of interactions when explaining any aspect of cellular function. And the very existence of these networks defies the central dogma:

(picture) "This is the sequence of the RNA transcript encoding NADH dehydrogenase 7 in Trypanosoma brucei. What's fascinating about this sequence is that only the nucleotides colored black in the graphic below are actually encoded in the mitochondrial DNA. The uridine nucleotides colored red have been inserted post-transcription by RNA editing. The blue asterisks (*) indicate locations where uridines have been deleted.
As you can see, almost the whole gene has been re-written post-transcription by RNA editing (without the editing, the gene is nonfunctional). Now, how would a non-intelligent process like neo-Darwinism account for this kind of phenomenon...?"

The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011)
Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory!

The Fairyland of Evolutionary Modeling - May 7, 2013
Excerpt: Salazar-Ciudad and Marín-Riera have shown that not only are suboptimal dead ends an evolutionary possibility, but they are also exceedingly likely to occur in real, developmentally complex structures when fitness is determined by the exact form of the phenotype.

The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight? - Koonin - Nov. 2009
Excerpt: The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair.
Epigenetics and Soft Inheritance - Challenging The Modern Synthesis - video
Soft Inheritance (Epigenetics): Challenging The Modern Synthesis - Lablonka, Lamb - 2008
Excerpt: Many biologists feel that the foundations of the evolutionary paradigm, that was constructed during the 1930s and 1940s (Mayr, 1982) and has dominated Western views of evolution for the last 60 years, are crumbling, and that the construction of a new evolutionary paradigm is underway.,,
We believe that rather than trying to continue to work within a framework of a Synthesis that was made in the last century, we now need a new type of evolutionary theory, one that acknowledges Darwinian, Lamarkian and saltational processes.

Die, selfish gene, die - The selfish gene is one of the most successful science metaphors ever invented. Unfortunately, it’s wrong - Dec. 2013
Excerpt: But 15 years after Hamilton and Williams kited [introduced] this idea, it was embraced and polished into gleaming form by one of the best communicators science has ever produced: the biologist Richard Dawkins. In his magnificent book The Selfish Gene (1976), Dawkins gathered all the threads of the modern synthesis — Mendel, Fisher, Haldane, Wright, Watson, Crick, Hamilton, and Williams — into a single shimmering magic carpet (called the selfish gene).
Unfortunately, say Wray, West-Eberhard and others, it’s wrong.
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video
,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”.
Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
,,You can pick up the rest of the high points of Dr. Nobel's talk at the two minute mark of the preceding video I referenced, or you can watch the entire video here:

Rocking the foundations of biology - video

Here is a more recent talk by Dr. Nobel:

Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology – Denis Nobel – July 2013 – video

Here is the paper that accompanies the preceding video:

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - resource page - 2013
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - 17 MAY 2013
Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,,

“The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
- Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences

video debate - Denis Noble and Sydney Brenner will propose and oppose respectively the motion that:
“There is no privileged level of causation: an organism is not defined by its genome”
At the 10:30 minute mark of the following video, Dr. Trifonov states that the concept of the selfish gene 'inflicted an immense damage to biological sciences', for over 30 years:

Second, third, fourth… genetic codes - One spectacular case of code crowding - Edward N. Trifonov - video

In the preceding video, Trifonov elucidates codes that are, simultaneously, in the same sequence, coding for DNA curvature, Chromatin Code, Amphipathic helices, and NF kappaB. In fact, at the 58:00 minute mark he states, "Reading only one message, one gets three more, practically GRATIS!". And please note that this was just an introductory lecture in which Trifinov just covered the very basics and left many of the other codes out of the lecture. Codes which code for completely different, yet still biologically important, functions. In fact, at the 7:55 mark of the video, there are 13 codes that are listed on a powerpoint, although the writing was too small for me to read.

Concluding powerpoint of the lecture (at the 1 hour mark):
"Not only are there many different codes in the sequences, but they overlap, so that the same letters in a sequence may take part simultaneously in several different messages."
Edward N. Trifonov - 2010
Time mag: (Another) Second Code Uncovered Inside the DNA -- Scientists have discovered a second code hidden within the DNA, written on top of the other. - December 2013
To get a sense of the breath-taking complexity this represents, watch this video of J.S. Bach's "Crab canon." It was composed to be played backwards and forwards at the same time, and then with one part flipped upside down on the music stand.
Where Do Complex Organisms Come From? - 12/04/2012 - Stuart A. Newman - Professor of cell biology and anatomy, New York Medical College
Excerpt: In fact, adaptationist gradualism, though still popular in some scientific circles, is increasingly questioned and found wanting by evolutionary biologists working in an expanded set of disciplines.,,,
First, let's look at some of the expectations of the natural selection-based modern synthesis (of Darwinism): (i) the largest differences within given categories of multicellular organisms, the animals or plants, for example, should have appeared gradually, only after exceptionally long periods of evolution; (ii) the extensive genetic changes required to generate such large differences over such vast times would have virtually erased any similarity between the sets of genes coordinating development in the different types of organism; and (iii) evolution of body types and organs should continue indefinitely. Since genetic mutation never ceases, novel organismal forms should constantly be appearing.
All these predictions of the standard model have proved to be incorrect.,,,
With a 19th century notion of incremental material transformations no longer relevant to comprehending the range of organismal variation that has appeared throughout the history of life on Earth, the other pillar of the standard model can be discarded along with it. Specifically,,, there is no need for cycles of selection for marginal adaptive advantage to be the default explanation for macroevolutionary change.
As well, that maverick of molecular biology, James Shapiro, makes several comments in the comment section of the preceding article.
Revisiting the Central Dogma in the 21st Century - James A. Shapiro - 2009
Excerpt (Page 12): Underlying the central dogma and conventional views of genome evolution was the idea that the genome is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally by chemical fluctuations (106) or replication errors. This view has had to change with the realization that maintenance of genome stability is an active cellular function and the discovery of numerous dedicated biochemical systems for restructuring DNA molecules.(107–110) Genetic change is almost always the result of cellular action on the genome. These natural processes are analogous to human genetic engineering,,, (Page 14) Genome change arises as a consequence of natural genetic engineering, not from accidents. Replication errors and DNA damage are subject to cell surveillance and correction. When DNA damage correction does produce novel genetic structures, natural genetic engineering functions, such as mutator polymerases and nonhomologous end-joining complexes, are involved. Realizing that DNA change is a biochemical process means that it is subject to regulation like other cellular activities. Thus, we expect to see genome change occurring in response to different stimuli (Table 1) and operating nonrandomly throughout the genome, guided by various types of intermolecular contacts (Table 1 of Ref. 112).
Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigentic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.

James Shapiro - video clip playlist

The Genome is a Read-Write Memory System - James Shapiro - video

This preceding video clip describes why we now need to view the genome as Read-Write (RW) memory system rather than a Read-Only Memory (ROM) subject to accidental change.
How life changes itself: the Read-Write (RW) genome. - 2013
Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.
Serendipity and Exaptation: Circular Arguments - Cornelius Hunter - podcast
New Research Elucidates Directed Mutation Mechanisms - Cornelius Hunter - January 7, 2013
Excerpt: mutations don’t occur randomly in the genome, but rather in the genes where they can help to address the challenge. But there is more. The gene’s single stranded DNA has certain coils and loops which expose only some of the gene’s nucleotides to mutation. So not only are certain genes targeted for mutation, but certain nucleotides within those genes are targeted in what is referred to as directed mutations.,,,
These findings contradict evolution’s prediction that mutations are random with respect to need and sometimes just happen to occur in the right place at the right time.,,,

James Shapiro on “dangerous oversimplifications” about the cell - August 6, 2013
Excerpt: "Depending upon the energy source and other circumstances, these indescribably complex entities can reproduce themselves with great reliability at times as short as 10-20 minutes. Each reproductive cell cycle involves literally hundreds of millions of biochemical and biomechanical events. We must recognize that cells possess a cybernetic capacity beyond our ability to imitate. Therefore, it should not surprise us when we discover extremely dense and interconnected control architectures at all levels. Simplifying assumptions about cell informatics can be more misleading than helpful in understanding the basic principles of biological function.
Two dangerous oversimplifications have been (i) to consider the genome as a mere physical carrier of hypothetical units called “genes” that determine particular cell or organismal traits, and (ii) to think of the genome as a digitally encoded Read-Only Turing tape that feeds instructions to the rest of the cell about individual characters [4]."

How Predictable Is Evolution? - Feb. 19, 2013
Excerpt: "In all three populations it seems to be more or less the same core set of genes that are causing the two phenotypes that we see," Herron said. "In a few cases, it's even the exact same genetic change.",,,
"There are about 4.5 million nucleotides in the E. coli genome," he said. "Finding in four cases that the exact same change had happened independently in different populations was intriguing."
A few comments from the 'non-Darwinian' evolutionist, James A. Shapiro PhD. Genetics
Shapiro on Random Mutation:
"What I ask others interested in evolution to give up is the notion of random accidental mutation."
-Comment section
"Establishing that teleological questions are critical will itself take a considerable effort because we need to overcome the long-held but purely philosophical (and illogical) assertion that functional creativity can result from random changes."

Shapiro on Natural Selection:
"My argument remains that the innovative process in evolution is rapid natural genetic engineering rather than gradual selection of small changes over long periods of time. This argument does not deny a role for selection. I simply assert that it is unrealistic to ascribe a creative (virtually deus ex machina) role to natural selection."

Shapiro on Cell cognition:
"Recent postings have provoked numerous questions about my application of the term "cognitive" to cell regulatory processes. I base this usage on the notion that cognitive actions are knowledge-based and involve decisions appropriate to acquired information. It is common today for molecular, cell and developmental biologists to speak of cells "knowing" and "choosing" what to do under various conditions. While most scientists using these terms would insist they are just handy metaphors, I argue here that we should take these instinctive words more literally. Cell cognition may well prove itself a fruitful scientific concept."

Seeing Past Darwin II: James A. Shapiro - James Barham - May 2012
Excerpt: Much in our culture depends upon the public’s being made aware that Darwinian theory as standardly interpreted is intellectually bankrupt.(2) And little that I have encountered communicates this fact so well as the work of James A. Shapiro.
Of note: Shapiro admits he has no ‘real time’ empirical evidence for the origin of novel protein domains and/or genes by Darwinian processes (so as to be able to have the ‘protein domains’ to shuffle around in the first place) but must rely, as do neo-Darwinists, on the DNA/protein sequence similarity/dissimilarity data to try to make his case that novel protein domains were created in the distant past so that ‘natural genetic engineering' can presently create all the diversity we see in life on earth today. Yet, just as with neo-Darwinists, Shapiro relying on sequence similarity/dissimilarity data to ultimately try to make his case for ‘natural genetic engineering’ has the very same ‘unscientific’ problem that neo-Darwinism has of assuming the conclusion beforehand to try to prove the very question being asked. i.e. Can novel functional information we see in protein domains and/or genes ever be generated in a ‘bottom up’ fashion by the unguided material processes of neo-Darwinism? Here Dr. Shapiro admits to this serious shortcoming of his ‘natural genetic engineering’ theory:
How Natural Genetic Engineering Solves Problems in Protein Evolution - James Shapiro - May 2012
Excerpt: When I pointed out the potential of domain shuffling by natural genetic engineering to Intelligent Design advocates who claimed protein evolution by natural mechanisms was impossible, they refused to recognize genomic data as irrefutable evidence and insisted on real-time experiments. I disagree with them strongly on the DNA sequence data.

Exon Shuffling, and the Origins of Protein Folds - Jonathan M. - July 15, 2013
Excerpt: A frequently made claim in the scientific literature is that protein domains can be readily recombined to form novel folds. In Darwin’s Doubt, Stephen Meyer addresses this subject in detail (see Chapter 11).

Exon Shuffling: Evaluating the Evidence - Jonathan M. - July 16, 2013
The Problems with Domain Shuffling as an Explanation for Protein Folds
Excerpt: The domain shuffling hypothesis in many cases requires the formation of new binding interfaces. Since amino acids that comprise polypeptide chains are distinguished from one another by the specificity of their side-chains, however, the binding interfaces that allow units of secondary structure (i.e. α-helices and β-strands) to come together to form elements of tertiary structure is dependent upon the specific sequence of amino acids. That is to say, it is non-generic in the sense that it is strictly dependent upon the particulars of the components.
Domains that must bind and interact with one another can't simply be pieced together like LEGO bricks.
In his 2010 paper in the journal BIO-Complexity Douglas Axe reports on an experiment conducted using β-lactamase enzymes which illustrates this difficulty (Axe, 2010).
Doug Axe's work on the rarity of proteins is focused exactly on the rarity of individual protein domains/folds themselves. Doug Axe addresses James Shapiro's mistaken disagreement with Intelligent Design here:
On Protein Origins, Getting to the Root of Our Disagreement with James Shapiro - Doug Axe - January 2012
Excerpt: I know of many processes that people talk about as though they can do the job of inventing new proteins (and of many papers that have resulted from such talk), but when these ideas are pushed to the point of demonstration, they all seem to retreat into the realm of the theoretical.
Here is a list of 'non-random' mechanisms which confer antibiotic resistance:
Antibiotic Resistance Is Prevalent in an Isolated Cave (4 million year old) Microbiome - April 2012
Excerpt: 'Antibiotic resistance is manifested through a number of different mechanisms including target alteration, control of drug influx and efflux, and through highly efficient enzyme-mediated inactivation. Resistance can emerge relatively quickly in the case of some mutations in target genes and there is evidence that antibiotics themselves can promote such mutations [43], [44], [45], [46]; however, resistance to most antibiotics occurs through the aegis of extremely efficient enzymes, efflux proteins and other transport systems that often are highly specialized towards specific antibiotic molecules.'
Majority of mutations are directed (non-random) - Jonathan Bartlett - video

Here is a bit more detail on the insurmountable problems that the burgeoning field of 'epigenetics' presents for neo-Darwinism:
Epigenetics and the "Piano" Metaphor - January 2012
Excerpt: And this is only the construction of proteins we're talking about. It leaves out of the picture entirely the higher-level components -- tissues, organs, the whole body plan that draws all the lower-level stuff together into a coherent, functioning form. What we should really be talking about is not a lone piano but a vast orchestra under the directing guidance of an unknown conductor fulfilling an artistic vision, organizing and transcending the music of the assembly of individual players.

Do Physical Laws Make Things Happen? - Stephen L. Talbott
Excerpt: While there are many complex and diverse movements of mind as we speak, it is fair to say very generally that we first have an idea, inchoate though it may be, and then we seek to capture and clothe this idea in words. Each word gains its full meaning — becomes the word it now is — through the way it is conjoined with other words under the influence of the originating idea. The word simply didn't exist as this particular word before — as a word with these nuances of meaning.
So an antecedent whole (an idea) becomes immanent in and thereby transforms and constitutes its parts (words), making them what they are. In terms of active agency, it is less that the parts constitute the whole than the other way around.

Tonight’s Feature Presentation: Epigenetics, The Next Evolutionary Cliff - video
Excerpt: Just keep this one thing in mind as you watch. For everything you see in this animation, evolutionists have no scientific explanation how it evolved.

Getting Over the Code Delusion: Biology’s Awakening - Stephen L. Talbott - 2012
Excerpt: Nucleosomes will sometimes move — or be moved (the distinction between actor and acted upon is obscured in the living cell) — rhythmically back and forth between alternative positions in order to enable multiple transcription passes over a gene. (…)
The histone spool of nucleosomes, for example, is not some rigid thing. It would be far better to think of its “substance,” “surface,” “contact points,” and “physical interactions” as forms assumed by mutually interpenetrating forces in intricate and varied play. (…) The nucleosome is rather like a maestro directing the genetic orchestra, except that the direction is itself orchestrated by the surrounding cellular audience in conversation with the instrumentalists,,
The Mysterious Epigenome. What lies beyond DNA - video

"The Mysterious Epigenome: What Lies Beyond DNA" - May 2012 - podcast

A few personal comments on the mysterious ‘non-local’ epigenetic information implicated in 3-D spatial organization of Body Plans:
Non-random enviromentally induced changes observed in real time:
Tiny Fish Make 'Eyes' at Their Killer - Aug. 19, 2013
Excerpt: Researchers from Australia's ARC Centre of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies (CoECRS) have made a world-first discovery that, when constantly threatened with being eaten, small damsel fish not only grow a larger false 'eye spot' near their tail -- but also reduce the size of their real eyes.

Epigenetics May Become "Evolution Heresy" - September 12, 2013
Excerpt: a provocative study,, found that heritable changes in plant flowering time and other traits were the result of epigenetics alone, unaided by any (DNA) sequence changes.

Plant's Epigenome as Varied as Their Environments - Cornelius Hunter - March 24, 2013
Excerpt: epigenetics would involve literally hundreds (and that is conservative) of changes required before any benefit would be realized.
The tagging machines not only need to be built, or adapted from other machines, but they need to know where in all the genome to place the tags. Likewise for the machines that remove and move the tags. In other words, it is not good enough merely to evolve the machines. They somehow much know where to place the tags given a spectrum of environmental signals.
And then the machines that interpret the tags would have to do so correctly. They would have to know what the tag means. So again, not only must these machines have evolved or adapted, but they must know what they are doing.
That is astronomically unlikely to occur according to our knowledge of science.
But that is not all. For even given such a miracle, such epigenetic tags would not be inheritable. And yet they are. So there are even more machines that must have arisen by chance to preserve the tags when the cell divides.
This brings us to yet another set of problems with epigenetics: the machinery described above is not inheritable unless is evolves in the germline. But in the germline it doesn’t do anybody any good. Only when it is a passed on to the progeny can it help.
But even then the epigenetics capability likely won’t help because this capability gives the organism the ability to respond to a wide range of environmental conditions—conditions that probably won’t even occur in the organism’s lifetime.
In other words, we must believe that an astronomically unlikely capability arose by chance and though most of it wasn’t helpful, it was preserved anyway. Then, in future generations, when a particular environmental shift occurred, the epigenetics came to the rescue.
These problems are highlighted by the new research discussed above, showing how the epigenetic tagging can be so different in the same species of plant, in different locations around the world.,,,

Epigenetic changes don't last - September 2011
Excerpt: They found that epigenetic changes are many orders of magnitude more frequent than conventional DNA mutations, but also often short lived. They are therefore probably much less important for long-term evolution than previously thought.

How Bees Decide What to Be: Reversible 'Epigenetic' Marks Linked to Behavior Patterns, ScienceDaily, Sept. 16, 2012
Excerpt: "...DNA methylation "tagging" has been linked to something at the behavioral level of a whole organism. On top of that, they say, the behavior in question, and its corresponding molecular changes, are reversible,..."

Bees Can Switch Roles Epigenetically - September 25, 2012
Excerpt: Two new levels of complexity above the already-complex genes have come into view here: an epigenetic switchboard, as described by the ENCODE project, and a master controller yet to be elucidated.

Evidence of biological process that embeds social experience in DNA that affects entire networks of genes - October 11, 2012
Excerpt: Early life experience results in a broad change in the way our DNA is "epigenetically" chemically marked in the brain by a coat of small chemicals called methyl groups,,,
"This study provides strong evidence of a biological process that embeds social experience in DNA in the brain that affects not just a few genes but entire networks of genes," says Szyf. "We highlighted the immense importance of the social environment during childhood and illustrated the profound consequences of child adversity on the way our DNA is programmed.

A Modest Comeback for Lamarck, and a Reminder of the Edge of Evolution
Excerpt: 'Our study demonstrates that this can be done in a completely new way: through the transmission of extrachromosomal information.' ,,, Lamarck is now shown not to have been completely wrong about inheritance but only in the sense that, like the Darwinian mechanic, the Lamarckian one works by knocking things out, not building them up.
And although most epigenetic modifications gained during the life cycle of any particular organism are reset during reproduction, sometimes the changes to the genome are found to be permanent:
Histone-modifying proteins, not histones, remain associated with DNA through replication - August 23, 2012
Excerpt: A study of Drosophila embryos,, found that parental methylated histones are not transferred to daughter DNA. Rather, after DNA replication, new nucleosomes are assembled from newly synthesized unmodified histones. "Essentially, all histones are going away during DNA replication and new histones, which are not modified, are coming in,",,
"What this paper tells us," he continues, "is that these histone modifying proteins somehow are able to withstand the passage of the DNA replication machinery. They remained seated on their responsive binding sites, and in all likelihood they will re-establish histone modification and finalize the chromatin structure that allows either activation or repression of the target gene."

Perinatal (during and right after pregnancy) manipulation of α-linolenic acid intake induces epigenetic changes in maternal and offspring livers - 2012
Excerpt: This study describes the association between maternal ALA availability during gestation and lactation, and alterations in the Fads2 DNA methylation in both maternal and offspring livers, at the end of lactation period. Both Fads2 promoter and intron 1 DNA methylation were increased in the groups receiving postnatal flaxseed oil containing 50% ALA (mothers or pups), while bivariate analysis indicated a significant association of the Fads2 epigenetic status in the liver between each mother and its offspring.

Epigenetics: Feast, Famine, and Fatness - Helen Kollias - December 25th, 2009
Excerpt: In the last five to ten years, there has been more and more evidence showing there is a non-genetic part that can be passed down to children and even grandchildren. As of this summer there are over 100 scientific articles documenting non-DNA inheritance, also called transgenerational epigenetics (1).

The Rapid Origin of Domesticated Chicken - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012
Excerpt: The research finds that epigenetic mechanisms may be the cause of the rapid origin of domesticated chickens brought about by breeding, and that these epigenetic changes are reliably and stably inherited, resulting in lasting change in a population.
Fish Plasticity - Blind cavefish and Cichlid fish - March 17, 2013

Alternate RNA Polymerases - March 2012

What is even more troubling for neo-Darwinists is, not only that transgenerational changes are inherited apart from DNA (as troubling as that is for the central dogma),,,
"One of the mechanisms, referred to as epigenetics, involves small chemical tags, such as methyl groups, attached to DNA or its histone packaging proteins." C. Hunter
,,,What is even more troubling for neo-Darwinists is that transgenerational changes can be environmentally induced all the way down to directly modifying the DNA of a genome,,

Majority of mutations are directed (non-random) - Jonathan Bartlett - video

Non-Random and Targeted Mutations (Environmentally induced changes to the level of DNA, 6:34 minute mark of video) - video
An environmentally induced adaptive (?) insertion event inflax - 2009
Excerpt: Genomic changes in flax induced by the environment include the sequences encoding the ribosoal RNAs , many repetitive sequence families and a novel single copy insertion termed LIS-1, comprising a 5.7 kilobase(kb) DNA fragment.,,,

Environmentally Induced Heritable Changes in Flax - 2011
Excerpt: Some flax varieties respond to nutrient stress by modifying their genome and these modifications can be inherited through many generations.

Flax: More Falsifications of Evolution and the Real Warfare Thesis - Cornelius Hunter - 2011
Excerpt: The latest paper deals with flax plants which, when grown under stressful conditions, modify their genome. The genomic changes help the plant to thrive under the new conditions, and the changes are passed on to the progeny. The flax plant’s genomic changes are not just a lucky strike—the same precise additions, in the same precise location, occur when the experiment is repeated. For the changes are “the result of a targeted, highly specific, complex insertion event.”

How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome - James A. Shapiro - 2013
Excerpt: Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs).

Science Review Article: "Nothing in Evolution Makes Sense Except in the Light of Biology" - Casey Luskin - March 12, 2014
Excerpt: One of those now-overturned assumptions, which underlies virtually all of modern population genetics, "molecular clock" studies, as well as the highly criticized methods often used to infer natural selection in genes, is that mutations are random and occur at a constant, gradual rate:,,,
"Mutations are also nonrandom in genomic space -- for example, forming hot spots at DNA double-strand breaks, as demonstrated in bacteria and suggested by local clusters of mutations in cancer genomes.",,,
Their conclusion, however, is telling:
"The evolutionary biologist Theodosius Dobzhansky famously noted that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," but perhaps, too, "nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of biology."",,,
,,, In fact, it seems that a lot of evolutionary claims no longer makes sense in the light of biology.
These findings are a direct contradiction of the modern synthesis (central dogma) of neo-Darwinism,,
Does the central dogma still stand? – Koonin EV. – 23 August 2012
Excerpt: Thus, there is non-negligible flow of information from proteins to the genome in modern cells, in a direct violation of the Central Dogma of molecular biology. The prion-mediated heredity that violates the Central Dogma appears to be a specific, most radical manifestation of the widespread assimilation of protein (epigenetic) variation into genetic variation. The epigenetic variation precedes and facilitates genetic adaptation through a general ‘look-ahead effect’ of phenotypic mutations.,,,
The Central Dogma of molecular biology is refuted by genetic assimilation of prion-dependent phenotypic heredity. This phenomenon is likely to be the tip of the proverbial iceberg,,,
Even more generally, the entire spectrum of epigenetic variation, in particular various modifications of DNA, chromatin proteins and RNA, potentially can be similarly assimilated by evolving genomes.,,,
also see J.Shapiro, "Revisiting the Central Dogma", and D.Nobel, "Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology". Here are a few more notes along that line:
The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - January 2012
Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.

Peer-Reviewed Paper Concludes that Darwinism "Has Pretty Much Reached the End of Its Rope" - Jonathan M. - February , 2012
Excerpt: Contrary to the Darwin lobby's oft-repeated assertion that there are absolutely no weaknesses in Darwinian theory, the paper offers the concession that the modern synthesis has never provided an account of "how major forms of life evolved" -- an omission that is not unsubstantial, to put it mildly.

Study demonstrates evolutionary 'fitness' not the most important determinant of success - February 7, 2014 - with illustration
An illustration of the possible mutations available to an RNA molecule. The blue lines represent mutations that will not change its function (phenotype), the grey are mutations to an alternative phenotype with slightly higher fitness and the red are the ‘fittest’ mutations. As there are so few possible mutations resulting in the fittest phenotype in red, the odds of this mutation are a mere 0.15%. The odds for the slightly fitter mutation in grey are 6.7% and so this is far more likely to fix, and thus to be found and survive, even though it is much less fit than the red phenotype.,,,
By modelling populations over long timescales, the study showed that the 'fitness' of their traits was not the most important determinant of success. Instead, the most genetically available mutations dominated the changes in traits. The researchers found that the 'fittest' simply did not have time to be found, or to fix in the population over evolutionary timescales.
Fittest Can’t Survive If They Never Arrive - February 7, 2014
Celebrate the unknowns - Philip Ball - April 2013
Excerpt: "We do not know what most of our DNA does, nor how, or to what extent it governs traits. In other words, we do not fully understand how evolution works at the molecular level... "
Philip Ball - former editor of Nature

Why Is Evolution So Widely Believed? - William Lane Craig
Excerpt: I was intrigued recently to learn that Ayala has apparently since given up on the adequacy of the neo-Darwinian mechanisms. Lyn Margulis, one of the so-called Altenburg 16, a group of evolutionary biologists who met in 2008 at a conference in Altenburg, Austria, to explore the mechanisms behind evolutionary change, reported, “At that meeting [Francisco] Ayala agreed with me when I stated that this doctrinaire neo-Darwinism is dead. He was a practitioner of neo-Darwinism, but advances in molecular genetics, evolution, ecology, biochemistry, and other news had led him to agree that neo-Darwinism’s now dead”
(Suzan Mazur, The Altenberg 16 [Berkeley: North Atlantic, 2010], p. 285).
As well, recent 'cloning studies' give evidence against DNA/Genetic reductionism (central dogma):
"There is now considerable evidence that genes alone do not control development. For example when an egg's genes (DNA) are removed and replaced with genes (DNA) from another type of animal, development follows the pattern of the original egg until the embryo dies from lack of the right proteins. (The rare exceptions to this rule involve animals that could normally mate to produce hybrids.) The Jurassic Park approach of putting dinosaur DNA into ostrich eggs to produce a Tyrannosaurus rex makes exciting fiction but ignores scientific fact."
The Design of Life - William Dembski, Jonathan Wells Pg. 50
Moreover, directly contrary to the materialistic assumption that we are merely helpless 'victims of our genes', victims who are forever trapped in whatever misfortune our genes happen to throw at us, it is now known that, besides environmental triggers producing epigenetic changes, mental states (i.e. mind) can also 'epigenetically' modify the expression of our genes, thus giving us a certain measure of control over our 'genetic fate':

Genie In Your Genes – video
Anxiety May Shorten Your Cell Life – July 12, 2012
Excerpt: These studies had the advantage of large data sets involving thousands of participants.
If the correlations remain robust in similar studies, it would indicate that mental states and lifestyle choices can produce epigenetic effects on our genes.

Scientists Finally Show How Your Thoughts Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes, - December 10, 2013
Excerpt: “To the best of our knowledge, this is the first paper that shows rapid alterations in gene expression within subjects associated with mindfulness meditation practice,”,,,
“Most interestingly, the changes were observed in genes that are the current targets of anti-inflammatory and analgesic drugs,”,,,
the researchers say, there was no difference in the tested genes between the two groups of people at the start of the study. The observed effects were seen only in the meditators following mindfulness practice. In addition, several other DNA-modifying genes showed no differences between groups, suggesting that the mindfulness practice specifically affected certain regulatory pathways.

The health benefits of happiness - Mark Easton - 2006
Excerpt: "It's not just that if you're physically well you're likely to be happy but actually the opposite way round," said Dr Cox.
(Extensive studies show that) "If you are happy you are (much more) likely in the future to have less in the way of physical illness than those who are unhappy".

Proverbs 17:22
A cheerful heart is good medicine, but a crushed spirit dries up the bones.
Here are a few more resources exposing the complete failure of 'random mutations' to DNA to produce morphological novelty in body-plans:
Hopeful monsters,' transposons, and the Metazoan radiation:
Excerpt: Viable mutations with major morphological or physiological effects are exceedingly rare and usually infertile; the chance of two identical rare mutant individuals arising in sufficient propinquity to produce offspring seems too small to consider as a significant evolutionary event. These problems of viable "hopeful monsters" render these explanations untenable.
Paleobiologists Douglas Erwin and James Valentine

“Yet by the late 1980s it was becoming obvious to most genetic researchers, including myself, since my own main research interest in the ‘80s and ‘90s was human genetics, that the heroic effort to find the information specifying life’s order in the genes had failed. There was no longer the slightest justification for believing that there exists anything in the genome remotely resembling a program capable of specifying in detail all the complex order of the phenotype (Body Plan)."
Michael John Denton page 172 of Uncommon Dissent
This lack of beneficial morphological novelty also includes the highly touted four-winged fruit fly mutations:
...Advantageous anatomical mutations are never observed. The four-winged fruit fly is a case in point: The second set of wings lacks flight muscles, so the useless appendages interfere with flying and mating, and the mutant fly cannot survive long outside the laboratory. Similar mutations in other genes also produce various anatomical deformations, but they are harmful, too. In 1963, Harvard evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr wrote that the resulting mutants “are such evident freaks that these monsters can be designated only as ‘hopeless.’ They are so utterly unbalanced that they would not have the slightest chance of escaping elimination through natural selection." -
Jonathan Wells

'No matter what we do to a fruit fly embryo there are only three possible outcomes, a normal fruit fly, a defective fruit fly, or a dead fruit fly. What we never see is primary speciation much less macro-evolution'
Jonathan Wells

Fruit fly with the wings of beauty – July 2012
Excerpt: But a closer examination of the transparent wings of Goniurellia tridens reveals a piece of evolutionary(?) art. Each wing carries a precisely detailed image of an ant-like insect, complete with six legs, two antennae, a head, thorax and tapered abdomen.

Image of the Day: Fruit Fly Eye - February 2014
The bristles between the ommatidia of the Drosophila compound eye are believed to protect the eye's surface.

TEDx Video: Flight of the Fruit Fly – October 8, 2013
Excerpt: “Dickinson is a very intense guy himself, and gives a remarkable discussion of what makes the engineering that goes into fruit fly flight so amazing.” (4:50 minute mark of video lists several fascinating high tech ‘accessories’ of the fruit fly, such as a gyroscope)

Response to John Wise - October 2010
Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.
Mutations expressed early in embryonic development are the least likely to be tolerated by organisms – Paul Nelson – video
Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress - Paul Nelson - April 7, 2011
Excerpt: The problem may be summarized as follows:
-- There are striking differences in the early (embryonic) development in animals, even within classes and orders.
-- Assuming that these animals are descended from a common ancestor, these divergences suggest that early development evolves relatively easily.
-- Evolution by natural selection requires heritable variation.
-- But heritable variations in early development, in major features such as cleavage patterns, are not observed.
Darwin's Theory - Fruit Flies and Morphology - video
Experimental Evolution in Fruit Flies (35 years of trying to force fruit flies to evolve in the laboratory fails, spectacularly) - October 2010
Excerpt: "Despite decades of sustained selection in relatively small, sexually reproducing laboratory populations, selection did not lead to the fixation of newly arising unconditionally advantageous alleles.,,, "This research really upends the dominant paradigm about how species evolve," said ecology and evolutionary biology professor Anthony Long, the primary investigator.

Study of complete RNA collection of fruit fly uncovers unprecedented complexity - March 17, 2014
Excerpt: Scientists from Indiana University are part of a consortium that has described the transcriptome of the fruit fly Drosophila melanogaster in unprecedented detail, identifying thousands of new genes, transcripts and proteins.
In the new work, published Sunday in the journal Nature, scientists studied the transcriptome -- the complete collection of RNAs produced by a genome -- at different stages of development, in diverse tissues, in cells growing in culture, and in flies stressed by environmental contaminants. To do so, they used contemporary sequencing technology to sequence all of the expressed RNAs in greater detail than ever before possible.
The paper shows that the Drosophila genome is far more complex than previously suspected and suggests that the same will be true of the genomes of other higher organisms. The paper also reports a number of novel, particular results:,,, "splicing factors" (proteins that control the maturation of RNAs by splicing) are themselves spliced in complex ways; and that the Drosophila transcriptome undergoes large and interesting changes in response to environmental stresses.,,,
"As usual in science, we’ve answered a number of questions and raised even more. For example, we identified 1,468 new genes, of which 536 were found to reside in previously uncharacterized gene-free zones.” “We think these results could influence gene regulation research in all animals,”,,,
An example they pointed to was the perturbation experiments that identified new genes and transcripts. New genes were identified in experiments where adults were challenged with heat shock, cold shock, exposure to heavy metals, the drug caffeine and the herbicide paraquat, while larvae were treated with heavy metals, caffeine, ethanol or the insecticide rotenone.
Those environmental stresses resulted in small changes in expression level at thousands of genes; and in one treatment, four newly modeled genes were expressed altogether differently. In total, 5,249 transcript models for 811 genes were revealed only under perturbed conditions.

New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. – December 2010
Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.

Gene Regulatory Networks in Embryos Depend on Pre-existing Spatial Coordinates - Jonathan Wells - July 2011
Excerpt: The development of metazoan embryos requires the precise spatial deployment of specific cellular functions. This deployment depends on gene regulatory networks (GRNs), which operate downstream of initial spatial inputs (E. H. Davidson, Nature 468 [2010]: 911). Those initial inputs depend, in turn, on pre-existing spatial coordinate systems. In Drosophila oocytes, for example, spatial localization of the earliest-acting elements of the maternal GRN depends on the prior establishment of an anteroposterior body axis by antecedent asymmetries in the ovary. Those asymmetries appear to depend on cytoskeletal and membrane patterns rather than on DNA sequences,,,

Criticality in morphogenesis - September 17, 2013
Excerpt: In many regards, a brief time-lapse video can teach more about embryonic development than any amount of reading. It is hard not to be impressed how a repeatable form reliably emerges despite considerable variation in both genes and environment. While it had been hoped that concepts borrowed from statistical mechanics or the ideas of self-organized criticality could help to create some kind of physics-based theory of development, much of what has been done lies only at the level of metaphor. In a paper just released to ArXiv, William Bialek and his colleagues from Princeton University, have taken their search for the signature of criticality in a more specific direction. They looked at a particular set of transcription factors in Drosophila embryos which control spatiotemporal development. By analyzing fluctuations in the expression levels of these so-called gap genes, they found evidence for critical (fine) tuning in this particular network.
Development of a fly embryo in real time - video
Seeing the Natural World With a Physicist’s Lens - November 2010
Excerpt: Scientists have identified and mathematically anatomized an array of cases where optimization has left its fastidious mark, among them;,, the precision response in a fruit fly embryo to contouring molecules that help distinguish tail from head;,,, In each instance, biophysicists have calculated, the system couldn’t get faster, more sensitive or more efficient without first relocating to an alternate universe with alternate physical constants.

"The brain of a small fruit fly uses energy in the micro-watts for complex flight control and visual information processing to find and fly to food. I don't think a supercomputer could yet simulate what the fruit fly brain does even while using megawatts of energy. The difference of over ten orders of magnitude and the level of energy used is an indication of just how incredible biological systems are.
Professor Keiichi Namba, Osaka University
50 million year old Fruit Fly fossil compared to modern Fruit Fly - picture
Here was a literature bluff from a Darwinist on fruit flies claiming that they had evidence for 'beneficial' mutations:

Of related interest on the studies of fruit flies, believe it or not, evolutionary scientists have gone so far as to try to relate human sexual behavior to the sexual behavior of fruit flies:
UCLA biologists reveal potential 'fatal flaw' in iconic sexual selection study - June 26, 2012
Excerpt: In 1948, English geneticist Angus John Bateman published a study showing that male fruit flies gain an evolutionary advantage from having multiple mates, while their female counterparts do not. Bateman's conclusions have informed and influenced an entire sub-field of evolutionary biology for decades.,,, "Our team repeated Bateman's experiment and found that what some accepted as bedrock may actually be quicksand. It is possible that Bateman's paper should never have been published."
Many times evolutionists will mention evo-devo (Evolutionary Developmental Biology) to try to support the Darwinian claim that minor changes/mutations to DNA can drive major morphological novelty, but the evidence for evo-devo, particularly the Darwinian reliance on HOX genes to drive major morphological novelties of body plans, has been brought into severe doubt:
Evo-devo: Relaxed constraints on Hox gene clustering during evolution - B Galliot
Excerpt: Hox genes were initially identified in Drosophila as grouped regulatory genes, known as homeotic genes. They encode positional information during development following the colinearity rule, that is, their physical location in the cluster parallels the physical order of their expression along the anterior to posterior (AP) axis of the developing embryo (Lewis, 1978). Some years later, their molecular characterisation in both Drosophila and vertebrates proved that they code for proteins that bind DNA through the homeodomain, a domain of 60 highly evolutionarily conserved amino acids. Furthermore, mammals have the same clustered chromosomal organisation, where four copies of the Hox cluster, homologous to that of Drosophila, were found. Transcriptional analyses performed on sectioned and whole-mount embryos subsequently demonstrated the conservation of the colinearity rule (McGinnis and Krumlauf, 1992). So it seemed that Hox genes might provide a common molecular representation of the body plan at an early stage of the development of all animals. This is referred to as the phylotypic stage, during which embryos from distinct species tend to resemble to each other (Slack et al, 1993). Consequently, it was expected that the Hox gene cluster might have had this crucial developmental role even in the common ancestor of all bilaterally symmetrical animals.
However, in vertebrates, the spatial colinearity rule turned out to be only part of the story. In mammals, it was shown that the temporal order of activation of the Hox genes during development also corresponds to the order that these genes are arrayed in the genomic cluster (Kmita and Duboule, 2003). This temporal regulation is not observed in Drosophila embryos, where Hox genes are split into two half-clusters and are activated simultaneously. Genetic manipulations in mice show that the clustered organisation of Hox genes is required to implement such a tight temporal control. In contrast, Hox clustering is not necessary to achieve a proper spatial expression in other numerous cases (see in Kmita and Duboule, 2003).,,,
In this following comment, from a 2005 Nature review article, evolutionary geneticist Jerry Coyne, certainly no friend to ID, expressed strong skepticism at the proposed mechanism of 'gene switches' for evo-devo:
"The evidence for the adaptive divergence of gene switches is still thin. The best case involves the loss of protective armor and spines in sticklebacks, both due to changes in regulatory elements. But these elements represent the loss of traits, rather than the origin of evolutionary novelties...We now know that Hox genes and other transcription factors have many roles besides inducing body pattern, and their overall function in development - let alone in evolution - remains murky."

Research on stickleback fish shows how adaptation to new environments involves many genes - April 2012
Excerpt: A current controversy raging in evolutionary biology is whether adaptation to new environments is the result of many genes, each of relatively small effect, or just a few genes of large effect. A new study published in Molecular Ecology strongly supports the first "many-small" hypothesis.,, "I suspect that as more and more studies use these methods, the tide of opinion will swerve strongly to the view that adaptation is a complex process that involves many genes spread across diverse places in the genome," says Prof. Hendry.

Turns out sharks and skates don’t need HoxC genes - December 2011
Excerpt: “Our work illustrates the value of studying elasmobranch fishes such as skates and sharks to gain new insights. If elasmobranchs do not need HoxC genes to develop properly, we must consider the possibility that there is more flexibility in the role of the various Hox clusters than we previously thought.”
SHOX2 - Nested Hierarchy violated - video

Here is a more thorough critique of evo-devo:

Nature's "Gems": Microevolution Meets Microevolution - Casey Luskin - August 2010

Here are many more lines of evidence arguing against any DNA mechanisms for body plan development, Evo-Devo included:
Response to John Wise - October 2010
Excerpt: But there are solid empirical grounds for arguing that changes in DNA alone cannot produce new organs or body plans. A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism.

Life, Purpose, Mind: Where the Machine Metaphor Fails - Ann Gauger - June 2011
Excerpt: I'm a working biologist, on bacterial regulation (transcription and translation and protein stability) through signalling molecules, ,,, I can confirm the following points as realities: we lack adequate conceptual categories for what we are seeing in the biological world; with many additional genomes sequenced annually, we have much more data than we know what to do with (and making sense of it has become the current challenge); cells are staggeringly chock full of sophisticated technologies, which are exquisitely integrated; life is not dominated by a single technology, but rather a composite of many; and yet life is more than the sum of its parts; in our work, we biologists use words that imply intentionality, functionality, strategy, and design in biology--we simply cannot avoid them.
Furthermore, I suggest that to maintain that all of biology is solely a product of selection and genetic decay and time requires a metaphysical conviction that isn't troubled by the evidence. Alternatively, it could be the view of someone who is unfamiliar with the evidence, for one reason or another. But for those who will consider the evidence that is so obvious throughout biology, I suggest it's high time we moved on.
- Matthew
This following study is another nail in the coffin for the central dogma of the modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism (for the genetic reductionism scenario);
New level of genetic diversity in human RNA sequences uncovered
Excerpt: A detailed comparison of DNA and RNA in human cells has uncovered a surprising number of cases where the corresponding sequences are not, as has long been assumed, identical. The RNA-DNA differences generate proteins that do not precisely match the genes that encode them.,,, Nearly half of the RDDs uncovered in the new study cannot be explained by the activity of deaminase enzymes, however, indicating that unknown processes must be modifying the RNA sequence, either during or after transcription. ,,, Although all of the individuals analyzed in the study had a large number of RDDs, there was a great deal of variability in the specific RDDs found in each person's genetic material."

Skin cells reveal DNA's genetic mosaic - Nov. 18, 2012
Excerpt: The longstanding belief has been that our cells have the same DNA sequence and this blueprint governs the body's functions. The Yale team's research challenges this dogma.,,,
While observing that the genome of iPS cells closely resembles the genome of skin cells from which they originated, the team could identify several deletions or duplications involving thousands of base pairs of DNA. The team then performed additional experiments to understand the origin of those differences, and showed that at least half of them pre-existed in small fractions of skin cells. These differences were revealed in iPS cells because each iPS line is derived from one, or very few, skin cells. Vaccarino said these iPS lines could act as a magnifying glass to see the mosaic of genomic differences in the body's cells.
"In the skin, this mosaicism is extensive and at least 30 percent of skin cells harbor different deletion or duplication of DNA, each found in a small percentage of cells," said Vaccarino. "The observation of somatic mosaicism has far-reaching consequences for genetic analyses, which currently use only blood samples. When we look at the blood DNA, it's not exactly reflecting the DNA of other tissues such as the brain. There could be mutations that we're missing."

Somatic copy number mosaicism in human skin revealed by induced pluripotent stem cells - November 18, 2012

Stark Differences Between Human and Chimp Brains - Brian Thomas, M.S. - Oct. 5, 2012
Excerpt: In particular, human and chimp DNA methylation patterns, called "methylomes," were very different between the two species’ brain tissue. The data statistically indicated that "major principal components separate humans and chimpanzees," according to their report in American Journal of Human Genetics.1,3
A second observation is that the very genes that were differently methylated "exhibit striking associations with several disorders, including neurological and psychological disorders and cancers."1 These data show that methylation patterns in many cases can tolerate very little disruption, thus presenting another impossible hurdle for the evolutionary model to overcome.
If humans evolved from chimpanzee-like creatures, then some unknown evolutionary process must have altered their methylomes. But since methylomes apparently cannot tolerate that much alteration, then the evolutionary story must be in error.
Human and chimp species-specific and irreducibly complex methylomes refute human evolution.,,,

(Zeng, J. et al. 2012. Divergent whole-genome methylation maps of human and chimpanzee brains reveal epigenetic basis of human regulatory evolution. American Journal of Human Genetics. 91 (3):455-465.)
Moreover, the Human Genome Project also added weight against "Genetic Reductionism":
DNA: The Alphabet of Life - David Klinghoffer
Excerpt: But all this is trivial compared to the largely unheralded insight gained from the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. The insight is disturbing. It is that while DNA codes for the cell's building blocks, the information needed to build the rest of the creature is seemingly, in large measure, absent. ,,,The physically encoded information to form that mouse, as opposed to that fly, isn't there. Instead, "It is as if the 'idea' of the fly (or any other organism) must somehow permeate the genome that gives rise to it."
As well, it turns out that repetitive sequences of DNA, which were prematurely thought to be junk DNA by Darwinists, actually has important function in maintaining the 3-Dimensional structure of the chromosome:
Safeguarding genome integrity through extraordinary DNA repair - April, 2011
Excerpt: Unlike euchromatin, where most of an organism’s genes reside and where most DNA consists of long, unrepetitive sequences of base pairs, DNA in heterochromatin consists mostly of short repeated sequences that don’t code for proteins; indeed, heterochromatin was long regarded as containing mostly “junk” DNA.
Heterochromatin is now known to be anything but junk, playing a crucial role in organizing chromosomes and maintaining their integrity during cell division. It is concentrated near centromeres, where chromatids are in closest contact, which are required to transmit chromosomes from one generation to the next. Maintaining heterochromatin structure is necessary to the normal growth and functions of cells and organisms.
Multidimensional Genome - Dr. Robert Carter - video (Notes in video description)
In the case of DNA, the package can be as important as its contents: study - January 2011
modENCODE (the Model Organism ENCylopedia of DNA Elements)
Excerpt: Instead of spewing out long strings of the As, Ts, Gs and Cs like the gene sequencing labs, the epigenetic labs are disgorging voluminous data about the proteins bound to the DNA and the many other gizmos and widgets that make up the machinery of gene expression.
These widgets are collectively called the epigenome, because they provide a level of control in addition to, or beyond, the level provided by the genome. Whereas the genome is the same in every cell of an organism, the epigenome of every cell type is different. It is because of the epigenome that a liver cell is not a brain cell is not a bone cell.
This following video gives a glimpse of this 'higher level' information in action:

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video
You are not an accident. Your parents may not have planned you, but God did. He wanted you alive and created you for a purpose. Focusing on yourself will never reveal your purpose. You were made by God and for God, and until you understand that, life will never make sense. Only in God do we discover our origin, our identity, our meaning, our purpose, our significance, and our destiny.
Here are some articles that gives a small glimpse at the extreme organizational complexity that goes into crafting all the cells into one human body:
How many different cells are there in complex organisms?
Excerpt: The nematode worm Caenorhabditis elegans, the cellular ontogeny of which has been precisely mapped, has 1,179 and 1,090 distinct somatic cells (including those that undergo programmed cell death) in the male and female, respectively, each with a defined history and fate. Therefore, if we take the developmental trajectories and cell position into account, C. elegans has 10^3 different cell identities, even if many of these cells are functionally similar. By this reasoning, although the number of different cell types in mammals is often considered to lie in the order of hundreds, it is actually in the order of 10^12 if their positional identity and specific ontogeny are considered. Humans have an estimated 10^14 cells, mostly positioned in precise ways and with precise organization, shape and function, in skeletal architecture, musculature and organ type, many of which (such as the nose) show inherited idiosyncrasies. Even if the actual number of cells with distinct identities is discounted by a factor of 100 (on the basis that 99% of the cells are simply clonal expansions of a particular cell type in a particular location or under particular conditions (for example, fat, muscle or immune cells)), there are still 10^12 positionally different cell types.

Cell Positioning Uses "Good Design" - March 2, 2013
Excerpt: All in all, we see a complex answer to a simple question: how does a cell know where it is? Here we have seen multiple interacting mechanisms for gathering information from a noisy environment, refining it, and making decisions reliably. This is a form of irreducible complexity -- not so much of physical parts interacting, but strategies interacting, much like a software engineer would use multiple strategies to provide robustness for high-reliability software. Cells are so good at it, they gain "exceedingly reliable" information even from noisy, unreliable inputs.,,
"In biology, simple questions rarely have simple answers, and "how do cells know where they are?" is no exception.",,,
Lander says nothing about how these sensory strategies might have evolved by a Darwinian process. Indeed, Darwinian theory is essentially useless to the entire discussion.,,,

Here’s That New Paper Showing the Genetic Regulation Hierarchy - Cornelius Hunter - September 2012
Excerpt: a massive study of the interactions between transcription factors and DNA. The study found that the action of transcription factors falls into three distinct, hierarchical, categories. There are interactions that specify the basic cell type (muscle, skin, nerve, and so forth). Then there are interactions that specify the cell’s sub-identity (the particular type of muscle cell, for example). And finally there are interactions that specify the cell’s response to the current environmental challenges.

Gene activity and transcript patterns visualized for the first time in thousands of single cells - Oct 06, 2013
Excerpt: The method is so efficient that, for the first time, a thousand genes can be studied in parallel in ten thousand single human cells. Applications lie in fields of basic research and medical diagnostics. The new method shows that the activity of genes, and the spatial organization of the resulting transcript molecules, strongly vary between single cells.,,,
The analysis of the new data shows that individual cells distinguish themselves in the activity of their genes. While the scientists had been suspecting a high variability in the amount of transcript molecules, they were surprised to discover a strong variability in the spatial organization of transcript molecules within single cells and between multiple single cells. The transcript molecules adapted distinctive patterns.,,,

To Model the Simplest Microbe in the World, You Need 128 Computers - July 2012
Excerpt: Mycoplasma genitalium has one of the smallest genomes of any free-living organism in the world, clocking in at a mere 525 genes. That's a fraction of the size of even another bacterium like E. coli, which has 4,288 genes.,,,
The bioengineers, led by Stanford's Markus Covert, succeeded in modeling the bacterium, and published their work last week in the journal Cell. What's fascinating is how much horsepower they needed to partially simulate this simple organism. It took a cluster of 128 computers running for 9 to 10 hours to actually generate the data on the 25 categories of molecules that are involved in the cell's lifecycle processes.,,,
,,the depth and breadth of cellular complexity has turned out to be nearly unbelievable, and difficult to manage, even given Moore's Law. The M. genitalium model required 28 subsystems to be individually modeled and integrated, and many critics of the work have been complaining on Twitter that's only a fraction of what will eventually be required to consider the simulation realistic.,,,
"Right now, running a simulation for a single cell to divide only one time takes around 10 hours and generates half a gigabyte of data," lead scientist Covert told the New York Times. "I find this fact completely fascinating, because I don't know that anyone has ever asked how much data a living thing truly holds."
One cell. One division. Half a gig of data. Now figure that millions of bacteria could fit on the head of a pin and that many of them are an order of magnitude more complex than M. genitalium. Or ponder the idea that the human body is made up of 10 trillion (big, complex) human cells, plus about 90 or 100 trillion bacterial cells. That's about 100,000,000,000,000 cells in total. That'd take a lot of computers to model, eh? If it were possible, that is.
Moreover there another whole level of information on a cell's surface that is scarcely understood:

Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules - A Whole New Level Of Scarcely Understood Information on The Surface of Cells
Psalm 139:15
My frame was not hidden from You, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth;
Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth — visualized – video
Comment on preceding video: Mathematician and medical image maker Alexander Tsiaras offers a stunning visualization of the process that in nine months takes an emerging human life from conception to birth. He speaks of “the marvel of this information,” “the mathematical models of how these things are done are beyond human comprehension,” “even though I look at this with the eyes of mathematician I look at this and marvel. How do these instruction sets not make mistakes as they build what is us?”

“But Tantalus, are you saying there are individuals who have more humanity than others?!” - Michael Egnor
Excerpt: I didn’t ask a linguistic question, or a rhetorical question, or a logical question. I merely asked a biological question. If I were to show Tantalus a human embryo, and ask him “what is this”, meaning in a biological taxonomy sense, the only correct answer is that it is a human being- a homo sapien. There is no debate about this.

Reproductive Organs
Excerpt: Between 16 and 20 weeks of pregnancy, the ovaries of a female fetus contain 6 to 7 million oocytes (eggs). Most of the oocytes gradually waste away, leaving about 1 to 2 million present at birth. None develop after birth. At puberty only about 300,000 remain.

Embryology: Scientists crack open 'black box' of development and see a 'rosette' - February 13, 2014
Excerpt: This new method revealed that on its way from ball to cup, the blastocyst becomes a 'rosette' of wedge-shaped cells, a structure never before seen by scientists.
"It's a beautiful structure. This rosette is what a mouse looks like on the 4th day of its life, and most likely what we look like on the 7th day of ours, and it's fascinating how beautiful we are then, and how these small cells organize so perfectly to allow us to develop."
The Human Body is simply amazing:

The Human Body - You Are Amazing - video

Human Anatomy - Impressive Transparent Visualization - Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - video

The 'Fourth Dimension' Of Living Systems
Jeremiah 1:5
Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart;,,
Thus the 98.8% similarity derived from the DNA code, to the body plans of chimps and man, is purely imaginary, since it is clearly shown that the overriding 'architectural plan' of the body is not even encoded in the DNA in the first place. Of more clarity though, this '98.8% similarity evidence' is derived by materialists from a very biased methodology of presuming that the 1.5% to 2% of the genome, which directly codes for proteins, has complete precedence of consideration over the other remaining 98.5% of the genome which does not directly code for proteins. In fact Darwinists labeled large portions of the genome which did not directly code for proteins 'Junk' But this very dubious assumption of theirs has turned out to be very premature and very wrong:
The Demise of Junk DNA and Why It Matters - Jonathan M. - September 2012
Excerpt: “the prized 98% sequence-identify figure between humans and chimpanzees relates to the 2% of DNA that codes for the production of proteins. The non-protein-coding (Junk) regions of DNA are far more species-specific.,,, these (Junk) stretches of non-coding DNA really are functional, then what becomes of this (98%) sequence-identity figure and its significance with respect to shared ancestry?”
Yet even when considering just this 1.5% to 2% of the genome that codes for proteins, we find that the proteins, which are directly coded by that 1.5% to 2% of the genome, are shown to differ by a surprising 80% difference between chimps and man.
Chimps are not like humans - May 2004
Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said.

Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004
Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity.
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:

To put it mildly this huge +80% difference between chimps and humans is more than a slight problem for evolutionary materialists:

Collected notes on the severe limits found for the ability of proteins to ‘randomly’ evolve to new functions, for new binding sites, for new domain-domain interactions, and for new ORFan genes/proteins:

On top of this huge +80% difference in proteins, the oft quoted 98.8% DNA similarity is not even rigorously true in the first place. The percentage that researchers get depends, in large measure, to their assumptions going into genome sequence comparison studies.
Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He's a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity
Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.

Contradictory Trees: Evolution Goes 0 For 1,070 - Cornelius Hunter - June 11, 2013
Excerpt: One of evolution’s trade secrets is its prefiltering of (genetic) data to make it look good, but now evolutionists are resorting to postfiltering of the (genetic) data as well.,,,
,,out of 1,070 genes, every single one contradicted the hoped for evolutionary tree, as well as each other. 1,070 different genes and 1,070 different evolutionary trees. Consequently evolutionists are now manipulating the data even more than before to obtain the desired results.,,,
This problem became all the more obvious in a new study that examined 1,070 different genes found in a couple dozen yeast species (yes, the data were prefiltered). All those genes taken together produced one evolutionary tree, but each of the 1,070 different genes produced a different tree—1,070 plus 1 different trees. It was, as one evolutionist admitted “a bit shocking.”
Or as another evolutionist put it, “We are trying to figure out the phylogenetic relationships of 1.8 million species and can’t even sort out 20 [types of] yeast.”,,,
Clearly something is amiss and for evolutionists it cannot be the theory. That means it must be the data. The solution is postfiltering, to go along with the prefiltering. Whereas evolutionists once assured themselves that their problems would go away when more data became available, they now are headed in exactly the opposite direction.
What is needed now is less data. Specifically, less contradictory data. As one evolutionist explained, “if you take just the strongly supported genes, then you recover the correct tree.” And what are “strongly supported” genes? Those would be genes that cooperate with the theory. So now in addition to prefiltering we have postfiltering. We might say that the data now are theory-laden-laden. Evolutionists will be eliminating the uncooperative genes and retaining those genes with what evolutionists euphemistically refer to as “strong phylogenetic signals.”
Then they can tell us again that evolution is a fact because the evidence says so.
Of related note: Richard Dawkins claimed that the FOXP2 gene was among ‘the most compelling evidences’ for establishing that humans evolved from monkeys, yet, as with all the other evidences offered from Darwinists, once the FOXP2 gene was critically analyzed it fell completely apart as proof for human evolution:

Dawkins Best Evidence (FOXP2 gene) Refuted - video

As well, the primary piece of evidence, at the Dover trial, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP (Single Nuecleotide Polymorphism) evidence was overturned:

Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust - Casey Luskin - April 23, 2013

In the following paper, even the Darwinists who authored the paper admit that the FOXP2 gene evidence is ‘tenuous’,,
Human brain evolution: From gene discovery to phenotype discovery - Todd M. Preuss - February 2012
Excerpt: It is now clear that the genetic differences between humans and chimpanzees are far more extensive than previously thought; their genomes are not 98% or 99% identical.,,,
,,our understanding of the relationship between genetic changes and phenotypic changes is tenuous. This is true even for the most intensively studied gene, FOXP2,,
In part, the difficulty of connecting genes to phenotypes reflects our generally poor knowledge of human phenotypic specializations, as well as the difficulty of interpreting the consequences of genetic changes in species that are not amenable to invasive research.
Moreover, just considering this 1.5% of the genome that directly codes for proteins, other recent comparisons of the protein coding genes, between chimps and man, have yielded a similarity of only 96%. Whereas, the December 2006 issue of PLoS ONE reported that human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by 6.4%, which gives a similarity of only 93.6% (Hahn). Even more realistically, to how we actually should be looking at the genomes from a investigative starting point, Dr. Hugh Ross states the similarity is closer to 85% to 90% when taking into account the chimp genome is about 12% larger than the human genome. A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased 'only 1.5% of the genome' studies of evolutionists.
10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida
...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.

99%? 95%? 87%? 70%? How Similar is the Human Genome to the Chimpanzee Genome? - March 2010
Excerpt: The nonsensical idea that human and chimp DNA are 99% similar comes from misinterpreting a 1975 paper by Mary-Claire King and A. C. Wilson.,,,
Of course, the big question is: If 99% similarity was such strong evidence for a common ancestor between chimpanzees and humans, will 70% similarity be considered evidence against a common ancestor? Of course not! Evolution can use special pleading to accommodate any data. It does so with the fossil record, homology, etc. Why not do it with genome similarities as well?

Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - February 20, 2013
Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
Moreover, Dr. Tomkins is working to provide a much more detailed picture of the drastic genetic differences between chimps and man:
Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
Excerpt: In 2013, I published a research paper in which chimpanzee chromosomes were sequentially sliced into different sets of small pieces so that the algorithm could optimally compare them to human chromosomes. In so doing, I found that the chimpanzee genome was only about 70 percent similar to the human genome overall.7
More research is needed to show specifically how the new wealth of publicly available ENCODE data can be used beyond basic studies of human-chimp DNA similarity—incorporating lincRNAs and vlincRNAs to further highlight human uniqueness. Research using three large datasets produced by the ENCODE project is now underway at ICR for the purpose of addressing these questions. In a concurrent study, I am also comparing human protein-coding regions to those in chimpanzees. In combination, these new analyses will provide a much more detailed picture of what makes humans unique and will further demonstrate we are not evolved apes.

Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. - December 20, 2013
Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%)
2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk)
3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site)
All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function.

Genetic Recombination Study Defies Human-Chimp Evolution by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D. * - May 31, 2013
Excerpt: A recent study, published in the journal Molecular Biology and Evolution, evaluated various regions of the chimpanzee and human genomes for genetic recombination frequency by determining the DNA variability (differences) within large populations of both humans and chimpanzees.1 The researchers found that genetic recombination levels were much higher in regions of the genome between humans and chimps where sequence identity was higher. In the regions of much lower DNA similarity, which occur as differences in gene order, gene content, and other major DNA sequence differences—the recombination rates were much lower.,,
These results are the exact opposite of what evolutionists expected. According to evolutionary reasoning, the chromosomal areas between humans and chimps that were the most different should have had high levels of genetic recombination that would help explain why they were so different. But these chromosomal areas that were the most different between humans and chimpanzees had the lowest levels!
More recombination equals more evolutionary differences right? Apparently not!
Once again, new scientific data has falsified a prominent evolutionary hypothesis. While this study failed to uphold the hypothetical predictions of evolution, it did vindicate the now well-established fact that genetic recombination is a highly regulated, and complex bio-engineered feature that helps create variability in just the right areas of the genome.
Other recent research has shown that the human and chimpanzee genomes are radically different(70% indentity).5 And now this new study has demonstrated that these differences are not due to a mythical evolutionary tinkering and shuffling process associated with genetic recombination, but because humans and chimps were created separately and uniquely.

Groundbreaking Genetic Discoveries Challenge Ape to Human Evolutionary Theory – June 17, 2013
Excerpt: Ultimately, the study results were contradictory to what evolutionists had theorized. Not only were genetic recombination rates markedly low in areas of human-chimp DNA differences (“rearranged” chromosomes), but the rates were much higher in areas of genetic similarity (“collinear” chromosomes). This is the reverse of what evolutionists had predicted.
“The analysis of the most recent human and chimpanzee recombination maps inferred from genome-wide single-nucleotide polymorphism data,” the scientists explained, “revealed that the standardized recombination rate was significantly lower in rearranged than in collinear chromosomes.”
Jeffrey Tomkins, a Ph.D. geneticist with the Institute for Creation Research (ICR), told the Christian News Network that these results were “totally backwards” from what evolutionists had predicted, since genetic recombination is “not occurring where it’s supposed to” under current evolutionary theory.
Dr. Tomkins further emphasized that evolutionists greatly exaggerate the genetic similarities between humans and chimps, and often ignore areas of DNA where major differences do exist.
“It’s called cherry-picking the data,” he explained. “There are many genetic regions between humans and chimps that are radically different. In fact, humans have many sections of DNA that are missing in chimps and vice versa. Recent research is now showing that the genomes are only 70% similar overall.”,,,
Here is the actual paper:

Recombination Rates and Genomic Shuffling in Human and Chimpanzee—A New Twist in the Chromosomal Speciation Theory
Ten years on, still much to be learned from human genome map - April 12, 2013
Excerpt:,,,"What's more, about 10 percent of the human genome still hasn't been sequenced and can't be sequenced by existing technology, Green added. "There are parts of the genome we didn't know existed back when the genome was completed," he said.,,,
Molecular Biologist Dr. Fazale Rana points out the obvious, and unscientific, bias of Darwinists in this following paper:
DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps - Fazale Rana
Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be.

Genomic monkey business - similarity re-evaluated using omitted data - by Jeffrey Tomkins and Jerry Bergman
Excerpt: A review of the common claim that the human and chimpanzee (chimp) genomes are nearly identical was found to be highly questionable solely by an analysis of the methodology and data outlined in an assortment of key research publications.,,,
Based on the analysis of data provided in various publications, including the often cited 2005 chimpanzee genome report, it is safe to conclude that human–chimp genome similarity is not more than ~87% identical, and possibly not higher than 81%. These revised estimates are based on relevant data omitted from the final similarity estimates typically presented.,,,
Finally, a very recent large-scale human–chimp genome comparison research report spectacularly confirms the data presented in this report. The human–chimp common ancestor paradigm is clearly based more on myth and propaganda than fact.

Study Reports a Whopping "23% of Our Genome" Contradicts Standard Human-Ape Evolutionary Phylogeny - Casey Luskin - June 2011
Excerpt: For about 23% of our genome, we share no immediate genetic ancestry with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. This encompasses genes and exons to the same extent as intergenic regions. We conclude that about 1/3 of our genes started to evolve as human-specific lineages before the differentiation of human, chimps, and gorillas took place. (of note; 1/3 of our genes is equal to about 7000 genes that we do not share with chimpanzees)
The recently completed Gorilla genome threw another wrench into the Darwinian story of supposed human evolution:

30% of the Gorilla Genome Contradicts the Supposed Evolutionary Phylogeny of Humans and Apes - March 2012
The Gorilla Who Broke the Tree - Doug Axe PhD. - March 2012
Excerpt: Well, the recent publication of the gorilla genome sequence shows that the expected pattern just isn’t there. Instead of a nested hierarchy of similarities, we see something more like a mosaic. According to a recent report [1], “In 30% of the genome, gorilla is closer to human or chimpanzee than the latter are to each other…”
That’s sufficiently difficult to square with Darwin’s tree that it ought to bring the whole theory into question. And in an ideal world where Darwinism is examined the way scientific theories ought to be examined, I think it would. But in the real world things aren’t always so simple.

Publication of the Gorilla Genome - Casey Luskin - December 28, 2012
Excerpt: A whopping 30% of the gorilla genome -- amounting to hundreds of millions of base pairs of gorilla DNA -- contradicts the standard supposed evolutionary phylogeny of great apes and humans.
Recent Complete Gorilla Gene Sequencing Casts New Doubt on Human Origin Assumptions - podcast

Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence - Casey Luskin - many helpful links - June 2011

Primate Phylogenetics Challenge Darwin's Tree of Life - Casey Luskin - Audio Podcast

Apparently even Darwinists are now openly admitting that the genetic evidence for human evolution is crumbling:
Genomic Data Reveal a Complex Making of Humans - July 2012
Excerpt: In the last few years, two paradigms underlying human evolution have crumbled. Modern humans have not totally replaced previous hominins without any admixture, and the expected signatures of adaptations to new environments are surprisingly lacking at the genomic level.
Moreover, the following 'statistical test' found only a 62% similarity between chimp-human genomes rather than the 95%-98.5% similarity touted by many papers of evolutionists:
A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps - September 2010
Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%.
Post of interest refuting 98% similarity claim:
Moreover, when scientists did a actual Nucleotide by Nucleotide sequence comparison, to find the 'real world' difference between the genomes of chimps and Humans, they found the difference was even more profound than what Dr. Richard Buggs, or the statistical test, had estimated:
Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]
This following recent study found a dissimilarity of 86-89% for 'homologous sequences';
Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89% - Jeffrey P. Tomkins - December 28, 2011
Concluding statement: Depending on the BLASTN parameter combination, average sequence identity for the thirty separate experiments between human and chimp varied between 86 and 89%. The average chimp query sequence length was 740 bases and depending on the BLASTN parameter combination, average alignment length varied between 121 and 191 bases.
Excluding data for the number of clones that did not align or the large amount of bases within clones that did not align, an unbiased conservative estimate of genome-wide human-chimp DNA similarity is not more than 86–89% identical. The conservative nature of these estimates is further noted by the fact that the 40,000 sequence chimp sequences that were tested, represent pre-selected homologous sequence already known to align to the human genome.

Peer-Reviewed Paper in Medical Journal Challenges Evolutionary Science and Inaccurate Evolution-Education - Casey Luskin - January, 2012
Excerpt: DNA homology between ape and man has been reported to be 96% when considering only the current protein-mapping sequences, which represent only 2% of the total genome. However, the actual similarity of the DNA is approximately 70% to 75% when considering the full genome, including the previously presumed "junk DNA," which has now been demonstrated to code for supporting elements in transcription or expression. The 25% difference represents almost 35 million single nucleotide changes and 5 million insertions or deletions.
Even this fairly recent evolution friendly article found the differences in the protein coding genes of the Y chromosome between chimps and Humans to 'differ radically':
Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, - Jan. 2010
Excerpt: A Nature paper from January, 2010 titled, "Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content," found that Y chromosomes in humans and chimps "differ radically in sequence structure and gene content," showing "extraordinary divergence" where "wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.",,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,"

A False Trichotomy
Excerpt: The common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and human Y chromosomes are “horrendously different from each other”, says David Page,,, “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.”

Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010
Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
The evolutionary scientists of the preceding paper offered some evolutionary 'just so' stories of 'dramatically sped up evolution' for why there are such significant differences in the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans, yet when the Y chromosome is looked at for its rate of change we find there is hardly any evidence for any change at all, much less the massive changes the evolutionists are required to explain.
Excerpt: To their great surprise, Dorit and his associates found no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry.

Theory of the 'Rotting' Y Chromosome Dealt a Fatal Blow - February 2012
Excerpt: "the sequence of the rhesus Y, shows the chromosome hasn't lost a single ancestral gene in the past 25 million years. By comparison, the human Y has lost just one ancestral gene in that period, and that loss occurred in a segment that comprises just 3% of the entire chromosome", ",,,earlier work comparing the human and chimpanzee Ys revealed a stable human Y for at least six million years. "Now our empirical data fly in the face of the other theories out there. With no loss of genes on the rhesus Y and one gene lost on the human Y, it's clear the Y isn't going anywhere."
Of related note:
Sex Chromosome Shocker: The 'Female' X a Key Contributor to Sperm Production - July 21, 2013
Excerpt: Painstaking new analysis of the genetic sequence of the X chromosome -- long perceived as the "female" counterpart to the male-associated Y chromosome -- reveals that large portions of the X have "evolved" to play a specialized role in sperm production.
Of course the researchers never actually proved the evolution of such a complex relationship between the X and Y chromosomes. They have merely found a complex relationship between the two chromosomes and assumed it must have evolved because, of course, in the materialistic mindset everything must have evolved.

Of related interest: Man’s sexual reproduction relies on ‘hydraulics’ whereas chimpanzees have an actual bone involved in their reproductive system:

Ian Juby’s Chimp compared to Man sexual reproduction video – (plus Can sexual reproduction plausibly evolve in the first place?) – video

I find it extremely interesting that the Y chromosome (male chromosome) would have such a pronounced 'signature of individuality' in the human genome since it is clearly one of the primary chromosomes directly involved in overseeing human reproduction of males. A 'reproductive individuality' for humans which, of course, has direct and severe contradictory implications to the Darwinian scenario of human evolution since only the 'reproductive mutations/variations', that manage to 'slip through' the multiple layers of error correction, actually count in any Darwinian scenario. As well, lest human women feel left out, this 'signature of individuality' for humans is not limited to just the male Y chromosome:
More Chimp-Human Genome Problems - Cornelius Hunter
Excerpt: Even more interesting, at these locations the chimp's genome is quite similar to other primates--it is the human that differs from the rest, not the chimp. (human accelerated regions (HARs).
Scientific American: The Banality of Evil(ution) - Cornelius Hunter - March 2010
Excerpt: Furthermore, these typos simultaneously must have altered two other genes which overlap with HAR1. That’s right, HAR1 (human accelerated region) lies in a region of overlapping genes. Imagine typing a paragraph which contains one message when read normally and a different message when read backward. Not only must evolution have created all of biology's genetic information, but it composed the information in overlapping prose. Someday evolutionists will figure out how.
Despite this dramatic turn of evidence severely undermining the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and humans, Darwinists, unfazed by the turn of evidence, continue 'begging the question' with purported genetic evidence for common ancestry:
Dennis Venema Begs the Question and Warns the Church That it Must Come to Terms With Human-Chimp Common Ancestry - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012
Excerpt: One tactic evolutionists use is to interpret evidence in terms of evolution and then claim the result as evidence for evolution. That is not only bad science, it is fallacious. Conclusions cannot also be premises.
This following article, which has a direct bearing on the 98.8% genetic similarity myth, shows that over 1000 'ORFan' genes, that are completely unique to humans and not found in any other species, and that very well may directly code for proteins, were stripped from the 20,500 gene count of humans simply because the evolutionary scientists could not find corresponding genes in primates. In other words evolution, of humans from primates, was assumed to be true in the first place and then the genetic evidence was directly molded to fit in accord with their unproven assumption. It would be hard to find a more biased and unfair example of practicing science!
Human Gene Count Tumbles Again - 2008
Excerpt: Scientists on the hunt for typical genes — that is, the ones that encode proteins — have traditionally set their sights on so-called open reading frames, which are long stretches of 300 or more nucleotides, or “letters” of DNA, bookended by genetic start and stop signals.,,,, The researchers considered genes to be valid if and only if similar sequences could be found in other mammals – namely, mouse and dog. Applying this technique to nearly 22,000 genes in the Ensembl gene catalog, the analysis revealed 1,177 “orphan” DNA sequences.,,, the researchers compared the orphan sequences to the DNA of two primate cousins, chimpanzees and macaques. After careful genomic comparisons, the orphan genes were found to be true to their name — they were absent from both primate genomes.
This following site has a brief discussion on the biased methodology of the preceding 'Human Gene Count' study:

In fact it turns out that the authors of the preceding 'kick the ORFans out in the street' paper actually did know that there was unbiased evidence strongly indicating the ORFan genes encoded proteins but chose to ignore it in favor of their preconceived evolutionary bias:
From Jerry Coyne, More Table-Pounding, Hand-Waving - May 2012
Excerpt: "More than 6 percent of genes found in humans simply aren't found in any form in chimpanzees. There are over fourteen hundred novel genes expressed in humans but not in chimps."
Jerry Coyne - ardent and 'angry' neo-Darwinist - professor at the University of Chicago in the department of ecology and evolution for twenty years. He specializes in evolutionary genetics.

Mechanisms and dynamics of orphan gene emergence in insect genomes - January 2013
Excerpt: Orphans are an enigmatic portion of the genome since their origin and function are mostly unknown and they typically make up 10 to 30% of all genes in a genome.

"However, with the advent of sequencing of full genomes, it became clear that approximately 20–40% of the identified genes could not be associated with a gene family that was known before. Such genes were originally called ‘orphan’ genes"

Did (ORFan) Proteins Evolve From Long Non Coding RNAs? - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 2012
Excerpt: The review paper did not actually explain how orphans could have evolved. Rather, it assumed they evolved and explained that, given that orphans evolved, how fast they must have evolved,,,

An integrated encyclopedia of DNA elements in the human genome - Sept. 6, 2012
Excerpt: Analysis,,, yielded 57 confidently identified unique peptide sequences in intergenic regions relative to GENCODE annotation. Taken together with evidence of pervasive genome transcription, these data indicate that additional protein-coding genes remain to be found.

Finding Protein-Coding Genes through Human Polymorphisms - January 2013
Excerpt: We found 5,737 putative protein-coding genes that do not exist in the reference, whose protein-coding status is supported by homology to known proteins. On average 10% of these genes are located in the genomic regions devoid of annotated genes in 12 other catalogs. Our statistical analysis showed that these ORFs are unlikely to occur by chance.
Comment from UD blogger lifepsy on preceding article:
,,from what I gather, they tested a dozen different racial groups of people for genetic polymorphisms(differences), and discovered a total of 5,737 novel genes that do not exist in the standard human genome reference.
Most of these share at least some overlapping codons with the reference genome, but on average, 10% (~500) of those novel genes exist in human genome regions that have not previously been annotated(identified) as having protein-coding regions, and do not overlap at all with other human sequences in the database. So it sounds like these are “within species” orphan genes, meaning they have no signal of ancestry even within other humans.
What’s also interesting is the comparison they did with 25 other non-human species…(Table 5)

"Surprisingly, we discovered that there are some overlaps between predicted genes and the known genes of these species. Moreover, we can distinguish between mammals and non-mammals from the table. The mammals have more overlaps () than non-mammals."

If you look at the table you see the human genes had more similarity to the opossum, dog, rat, cow, and several other mammals than it did to a chimpanzee.
And the human genes were more closely related to a lizard, a frog, and three different species of fish, then it was to another mammal, the Panda.
Huge discrepancies like this seem to be common on a gene by gene basis… They justify it somehow by saying when you total it all up, we’re more related to rats than fish, I guess..

"It was suggested that novel genes regularly appear from messenger RNAs of ancestral genes"

Yep, no need for that antiquated stepwise stuff anymore. New genes “regularly appear” now.

A survey of orphan enzyme activities
Abstract: We demonstrate that for ~80% of sampled orphans, the absence of sequence data is bona fide. Our analyses further substantiate the notion that many of these (orfan) enzyme activities play biologically important roles.
Moreover, ORFans are found to be genuine in that they encode functional proteins:
Dr. Howard Ochman - Dept. of Biochemistry at the University of Arizona
Excerpt of Proposal: The aims of this proposal are to investigate this enigmatic class of genes by elucidating the source and functions of “ORFans”, i.e., sequences within a genome that encode proteins having no homology (and often no structural similarity) to proteins in any other genome. Moreover, the uniqueness of ORFan genes prohibits use of any of homology-based methods that have traditionally been employed to establish gene function.,,, Although it has been hypothesized that ORFans might represent non-coding regions rather than actual genes, we have recently established that the vast majority that ORFans present in the E. coli genome are under selective constraints and encode functional proteins.
Moreover the 'anomaly' of unique ORFan genes is found in every new genome sequenced:

Widespread ORFan Genes Challenge Common Descent – Paul Nelson – video with references
Estimating the size of the bacterial pan-genome - Pascal Lapierre and J. Peter Gogarten - 2008
Excerpt: We have found greater than 139 000 rare (ORFan) gene families scattered throughout the bacterial genomes included in this study. The finding that the fitted exponential function approaches a plateau indicates an open pan-genome (i.e. the bacterial protein universe is of infinite size); a finding supported through extrapolation using a Kezdy-Swinbourne plot (Figure S3). This does not exclude the possibility that, with many more sampled genomes, the number of novel genes per additional genome might ultimately decline; however, our analyses and those presented in Ref. [11] do not provide any indication for such a decline and confirm earlier observations that many new protein families with few members remain to be discovered.
At the 12:40 minute mark of the following 'The Dictionary of Life' video, Dr. Nelson describes the breaking point for Darwinian scenarios from the genetic evidence:

The Dictionary of Life | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video
The essential genome of a bacterium - 2011
Figure (C): Venn diagram of overlap between Caulobacter and E. coli ORFs (outer circles) as well as their subsets of essential ORFs (inner circles). Less than 38% of essential Caulobacter ORFs are conserved and essential in E. coli. Only essential Caulobacter ORFs present in the STING database were considered, leading to a small disparity in the total number of essential Caulobacter ORFs.
Orphan Genes (And the peer reviewed 'non-answer' from Darwinists) - video
Genes from nowhere: Orphans with a surprising story - 16 January 2013 - Helen Pilcher
Excerpt: When biologists began sequencing genomes they discovered up to a third of genes in each species seemed to have no parents or family of any kind. Nevertheless, some of these "orphan genes" are high achievers (are just as essential as 'old' genes),,,
But where do they come from? With no obvious ancestry, it was as if these genes appeared out of nowhere, but that couldn't be true. Everyone assumed that as we learned more, we would discover what had happened to their families. But we haven't-quite the opposite, in fact.,,,
The upshot is that the chances of random mutations turning a bit of junk DNA into a new gene seem infinitesmally small. As the French biologist Francois Jacob wrote 35 years ago, "the probability that a functional protein would appear de novo by random association of amino acids is practically zero".,,,
Orphan genes have since been found in every genome sequenced to date, from mosquito to man, roundworm to rat, and their numbers are still growing.

Proteins and Genes, Singletons and Species - Branko Kozulić PhD. Biochemistry
Excerpt: Horizontal gene transfer is common in prokaryotes but rare in eukaryotes [89-94], so HGT cannot account for (ORFan) singletons in eukaryotic genomes, including the human genome and the genomes of other mammals.,,,
The trend towards higher numbers of (ORFan) singletons per genome seems to coincide with a higher proportion of the eukaryotic genomes sequenced. In other words, eukaryotes generally contain a larger number of singletons than eubacteria and archaea.,,,
That hypothesis - that evolution strives to preserve a protein domain once it stumbles upon it contradicts the power law distribution of domains. The distribution graphs clearly show that unique domains are the most abundant of all domain groups [21, 66, 67, 70, 72, 79, 82, 86, 94, 95], contrary to their expected rarity.,,,
Evolutionary biologists of earlier generations have not anticipated [164, 165] the challenge that (ORFan) singletons pose to contemporary biologists. By discovering millions of unique genes biologists have run into brick walls similar to those hit by physicists with the discovery of quantum phenomena. The predominant viewpoint in biology has become untenable: we are witnessing a scientific revolution of unprecedented proportions.
Of Note: Branko Kozulic is on the editorial team of BioComplexity

Bigelowiella natans: Evolution Damage Control is Frantic - December 5, 2012
Excerpt: (Extremely complex) Alternative splicing is not the only contradiction (to Darwinism) offered up by this humble (single celled) organism. B. natans also surprised evolutionists with unique, novel genes. In fact it has, err, about ten thousand unique genes.
When unique genes first starting appearing in the genomic data, evolutionists figured their evolutionary cousins would be discovered in the genomes of other species. The problem was that we did not yet have sufficient genome data in hand. Surely once the genome data from more species were obtained, the cousins of those pesky unique genes would be found. Unique genes would become a thing of the past. But once again evolutionary theory pointed in the wrong direction. In fact, as the genomic data have increased, so have the unique genes. Now we can throw another 10,000 onto the heap.

Common Ancestry: Wikipedia vs. the Data - Casey Luskin - October 5, 2012
Excerpt: In fact, the largest category of genes here is eukaryotic (cells with a nucleus) genes that have no homolog among prokaryotes (cells without a nucleus) -- they don't even have any possible candidate ancestors to explain where these genes came from, much less a consistent pattern of similarity pointing to one particular ancestor. All this is the opposite of "a direct correlation with common descent.",,,
,,, if two phylogenetic trees aren't congruent, the problem isn't that common descent is wrong, but rather the conflict is simply evidence of HGT.,,, Syvanen, (in "Evolutionary Implications of Horizontal Gene Transfer," Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 46:339-356 (2012), invokes widespread HGT (Horizontal Gene Transfer), but he's uncommonly honest about the data and its implications, offering the radical suggestion that "life might indeed have multiple origins.",,,
let's now look within eukaryotes.,,,
The biochemical organization of the innate immune systems of plants and animals is strikingly similar -- but this is a direct non-correlation with common descent. Thus, evolutionary scientists are forced to call them "unexpectedly similar," postulating that the similarities were "independently derived." This data is not explained by Darwinian evolution and common descent. It is explained by common design.
Somehow, something tells me not to expect any corrections over at Wikipedia.

Genomes of similar species - Cornelius Hunter PhD.
Excerpt: Different variants of the Escherichia coli bacteria, for instance, each have hundreds of unique genes. And some of these genes have been found to have important functions, such as helping to construct proteins. [8]
Massive genetic differences were also found between different fruit fly species. The fruit fly is one of the most intensely researched organisms and in recent years a systematic study of the genomes of a dozen different species was undertaken. Evolutionists were surprised to find novel features in the genomes of each of these different fruit fly species. Thousands of genes showed up missing in many of the species, and some genes showed up in only a single species. [9] As one science writer put it, “an astonishing 12 per cent of recently evolved genes in fruit flies appear to have evolved from scratch.” [10] These so-called novel genes would have had to have evolved over a few million years—a time period previously considered to allow only for minor genetic changes. [11,12] ,,, etc.. etc…
As alluded to above, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, these 'new' ORFan genes are found to be just as essential as 'old' genes for maintaining life:
Age doesn't matter: New genes are as essential as ancient ones - December 2010
Excerpt: "A new gene is as essential as any other gene; the importance of a gene is independent of its age," said Manyuan Long, PhD, Professor of Ecology & Evolution and senior author of the paper. "New genes are no longer just vinegar, they are now equally likely to be butter and bread. We were shocked."

New genes in Drosophila quickly become essential. - December 2010
Excerpt: The proportion of genes that are essential is similar in every evolutionary age group that we examined. Under constitutive silencing of these young essential genes, lethality was high in the pupal (later) stage and (but was) also found in the larval (early) stages.
This following study, in which the functional role of ORFan genes was analyzed, the (Darwinian) researchers were 'very shocked' and 'taken aback' by what they found;
New Genes, New Brain - October 2011
Excerpt: “This is one of the first studies to look at the role of completely novel genes” in primate brain development,,, A bevy of genes known to be active during human fetal and infant development first appeared at the same time that the prefrontal cortex,,, Finally, 54 of the 280 genes found to be unique to humans were also highly expressed in the developing prefrontal cortex,,,, “We were very shocked that there were that many new genes that were upregulated in this part of the brain,” said Long, who added that he was also taken aback by synchronicity of the origin of the genes and the development of novel brain structures.,,, (From the PLoS article, author’s summary: We found these genes are scattered across the whole genome, demonstrating that they are generated by many independent events,,, Our data reveal that evolutionary change in the development of the human brain happened at the protein level by gene origination,,)
I would like to reiterate that evolutionists cannot account for the origination of even one unique gene or protein, much less the over one thousand completely unique ORFan genes found distinctly imbedded within the 20,000 genes of the human genome:
Could Chance Arrange the Code for (Just) One Gene?
"our minds cannot grasp such an extremely small probability as that involved in the accidental arranging of even one gene (10^-236)."

The Extreme Complexity Of Genes - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video

"Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality, the smallest element of which—a functional protein or gene— is complex beyond our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance, which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"
~ Michael Denton
And though neo-Darwinists like to claim that they have evidence for the origin of new genes, the fact is that it all turns out to be deceptive bluff and bluster on their part:

Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
Leading Darwin Defender Admits Darwinism's Most "Detailed Explanation" of a Gene Doesn't Even Tell What Function's Being Selected - Casey Luskin - October 5, 2011
Excerpt: ...You just admitted that the most "detailed explanation" for the evolution of a gene represents a case where:

*they don't even know the precise function of the gene,
*and thus don't know what exactly what function was being selected,
*and thus don't know if there are steps that require multiple mutations to produce an advantage,
*and thus haven't even begun to show that the gene can evolve in a step-by-step fashion,
*and thus don't know that there are sufficient probabilistic resources to produce the gene by gene duplication+mutation+selection.

In effect, you have just admitted that Darwinian explanations for the origin of genes are incredibly detail-poor.
And once again, I point out that Darwinists cannot even account for the origination of a single novel protein;
"Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds” 2004: - Doug Axe ,,,this implies the overall prevalence of sequences performing a specific function by any domain-sized fold may be as low as 1 in 10^77, adding to the body of evidence that functional folds require highly extraordinary sequences."

These New Protein Findings Are a Problem Even According to the Evolutionist’s Own Numbers - Cornelius Hunter - March 2012
Excerpt: And the numbers are even smaller for de novo genes found in humans. The time allowed goes down to about 5 million years and the effective population size goes down by at least two orders of magnitude, to about 10^5. So in this case the upper and lower limits become 10^14 and 10^10, respectively. And while these estimates are optimistic, they fall short by more than 50 orders of magnitude. The numbers don’t add up. The evolution of de novo genes can only count on from 10^10 to 10^18 attempts (and that’s optimistic). But the number of attempts that are required is estimated to be 10^63 and 10^77. This isn’t even close. These numbers show astronomical problems, yet evolutionists are certain their idea is a fact.
Of related interest, Granville Sewell, professor of mathematics at the University of Texas - El Paso, comments on adding improvements to the computer program he developed for ‘Analysis of Finite Element Method (PDE/PROTRAN)’ that,,
“Even the smallest modifications to that new feature, once it was functional, required adding several lines (of computer code) no one of which made any sense. or provided any ‘selective advantage’, when added by itself.” Granville Sewell – In The Beginning pg. 59
Evolutionists were recently completely surprised by this genetic study of kangaroos:
Kangaroo genes close to humans
Excerpt: Australia's kangaroos are genetically similar to humans,,, "There are a few differences, we have a few more of this, a few less of that, but they are the same genes and a lot of them are in the same order," ,,,"We thought they'd be completely scrambled, but they're not. There is great chunks of the human genome which is sitting right there in the kangaroo genome,"

First Decoded Marsupial Genome Reveals "Junk DNA" Surprise - 2007
Excerpt: In particular, the study highlights the genetic differences between marsupials such as opossums and kangaroos and placental mammals like humans, mice, and dogs. ,,,
The researchers were surprised to find that placental and marsupial mammals have largely the same set of genes for making proteins. Instead, much of the difference lies in the controls that turn genes on and off.
I'm just left wondering exactly where evolutionists should place the kangaroos on their cartoon drawings that show man evolving from apes. Perhaps they can place them next to Zebrafish and/or Sharks which show a 'surprising' similarity to humans here:
Family Ties: Completion of Zebrafish Reference Genome Yields Strong Comparisons With Human Genome - Apr. 17, 2013
Excerpt: Researchers demonstrate today that 70 per cent of protein-coding human genes are related to genes found in the zebrafish,,,

Shark and human proteins “stunningly similar”; shark closer to human than to zebrafish - December 9, 2013
Excerpt: “We were very surprised to find, that for many categories of proteins, sharks share more similarities with humans than zebrafish,” Stanhope said. “Although sharks and bony fishes are not closely related, they are nonetheless both fish … while mammals have very different anatomies and physiologies.
If that wasn’t bad enough for Darwinists, the ‘top down’ alternative splicing codes for chimps and humans are found to be vastly different,,
Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
As mentioned previously, the chimpanzee is found to have a 12% larger genome than humans. Thus, at first glance it would seem the chimpanzee is 'more evolved' than us humans, but this discrepancy is no anomaly of just chimps/humans. This disparity of genome sizes is found throughout life. There is no logical 'evolutionary progression' to be found for the amount of DNA in less complex animals to the size of genomes found in more complex animals. In fact the genome sizes are known to vary widely between Kinds/Species despite their differences in complexity and this mystery is known as the c-value enigma:
C-value enigma
Excerpt: it was soon found that C-values (genome sizes) vary enormously among species and that this bears no relationship to the presumed number of genes (as reflected by the complexity of the organism). For example, the cells of some salamanders may contain 40 times more DNA than those of humans. Given that C-values were assumed to be constant because DNA is the stuff of genes, and yet bore no relationship to presumed gene number, this was understandably considered paradoxical;
And yet, even though this C-value enigma is somewhat paradoxical to the materialistic, neo-Darwinian, point of view, since information is presupposed to simply ‘emerge’ from a material basis and there clearly is no linear correlation to amount of material present and amount of information expressed, from a design point of view we should rightly expect genome sizes to vary within design constraints. Constraints that would obviously be imposed in trying to achieve a ‘optimal design’ in any particular life-form that was designed; For examples of such constraints,,:
"There is strong positive correlation, however, between the amount of DNA and the volume of a cell and its nucleus - which effects the rate of cell growth and division. Furthermore, in mammals there is a negative correlation between genome size and rate of metabolism. Bats have very high metabolic rates and relatively small genomes. In birds, there is a negative correlation between C-value and resting metabolic rate. In salamanders, there is also a negative correlation between genome size and the rate of limb regeneration."
Jonathan Wells - The Myth Of Junk DNA - page 85

Excerpt: this show(s) that,,, the higher total life energy per unit body mass leads to smaller C-value.

Chromosomes' Big Picture: Similarities Found in Genomes Across Multiple Species; Platypus Still out of Place - 2011
Excerpt: "Basically what this all means is that if the chromosome number of a species can be given, the relative sizes of all the chromosomes can instantly be known," Yu said. "Also, if you tell me the genome size in the chromosome base pair, I can tell you the base pair length of each chromosome."
According to Yu, the most surprising finding is the extremely consistent distribution pattern of the chromosomes, a result from comparing the full sets of chromosomes -- called genomes -- of the 68 random eukaryotes. The team found that nearly every genome perfectly formed an S-curve of ascending chromosomal lengths when placed on a standardized X-Y axis. That meant the genome from a species of rice expressed the same pattern as the genome from a species of maize, sorghum, fruit fly, dog, chimpanzee, etc.,,,,
"We could not believe this the first time the plot was generated," said Chengsong Zhu, research associate in agronomy.

The 's-curve' (1/4 power scaling) generated in the preceding paper can be seen here:
As well, at the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, we find that ‘genome length vs. mass’ also gives a enigmatic 1/4 power scaling on the plotted graph for a wide range of different creatures. Thus, once again, giving strong indication of a design constraint that was/is imposed, top down, on genome length, and which is inexplicable from the neo-Darwinian framework:

4-Dimensional Quarter Power Scaling In Biology – video
Chargaff’s “Grammar of Biology”: New Fractal-like Rules - 2011
Excerpt from Conclusion: It was shown that these rules are valid for a large set of organisms: bacteria, plants, insects, fish and mammals. It is noteworthy that no matter the word length the same pattern is observed (self-similarity). To the best of our knowledge, this is the first invariant genomic properties publish(ed) so far, and in Science invariant properties are invaluable ones and usually they have practical implications.

Why the "Onion Test" Fails as an Argument for "Junk DNA" - Jonathan M. - November 2, 2011
Excerpt: The so-called onion test, or indeed the "C-value enigma," is predicated on unsupportable assumptions about the physiological effects of -- and/or requirements for -- larger genomes, many of which are contradicted by the scientific evidence.
Biologist John Mattick on Junk DNA, ENCODE, and Intelligent Design - Jonathan M. - August 9, 2013 (section on “C-Value”)

Thus, though we are just barely beginning to understand these varying constraints on genome sizes imposed for ‘optimal design’, the point is that the evidence is indeed beginning to point strongly in the Intelligent Design direction, just as it should have rightly been presupposed to do years ago if the biological sciences were to have been unshackled from the stifling dogma of neo-Darwinism!

The following articles refute the evolutionist's 'fused Chromosome 2' argument for common ancestry of humans from primates:

Why The Chromosomal Fusion Argument Doesn’t Wash - Jonathan M - February 2011

Fusion of Chromosome 2 - Sean D. Pitman M.D

Refutation Of "Fused" Chromosome 2 Argument For Common Ancestry

New Research Undermines Fused Chromosome 2 Argument for Human Evolution - video
Geoff Barnard notes, "the wide variety of chromosomal variations that clearly exist between the human and chimpanzee, dictate against the thesis that these species have common ancestry." In another, Nevin and Phil Hills show that "the fused chromosome is unique to the human and is not found in the great apes . . . the numerous chromosomal variations between the human and chimpanzee suggest that these species do not have common ancestry."
Here is the Vitamin C pseudogene refutation By Jonathan Wells from appendix of 'The Myth Of Junk DNA' pages 109-114 by Jonathan Wells

This following references also shed some light on the biased methodology used by Darwinists that goes into their trying to establish the 98.8% similar DNA figure between chimps and man
Genome-Wide DNA Alignment Similarity (Identity) for 40,000 Chimpanzee DNA Sequences Queried against the Human Genome is 86–89% - Jeffrey P. Tomkins - December 28, 2011
Excerpt: A common claim that is propagated through obfuscated research publications and popular evolutionary science authors is that the DNA of chimpanzees or chimps (Pan troglodytes) and humans (Homo sapiens) is about 98–99% similar. A major problem with nearly all past human-chimp comparative DNA studies is that data often goes through several levels of pre-screening, filtering and selection before being aligned, summarized, and discussed. Non-alignable regions are typically omitted and gaps in alignments are often discarded or obfuscated.
In an upcoming paper, Tomkins and Bergman (2012) discuss most of the key human-chimp DNA similarity research papers on a case-by-case basis and show that the inclusion of discarded data (when provided) actually suggests a DNA similarity for humans and chimps not greater than 80–87% and quite possibly even less.

Critically Analyzing the Argument from Human/Chimpanzee Genetic Similarity - Casey Luskin - Part 8 of 8 in a series of articles refuting Dennis Venema's claims for information generation by neo-Darwinian processes - September 2011
Excerpt: we're not talking about "small changes" but rather, as the journal Science explained, at the very least these differences entail "35 million base-pair changes, 5 million indels in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans."[1]
Are Humans and Chimps Really 98% Genetically Identical? - video

As well, completely contrary to evolutionary thought, this following article and video shows that the same exact genes in different species have actually been shown to be involved in the construction of completely different body structures:
A Primer on the Tree of Life (Part 4)
Excerpt: "In sharks, for example, the gut develops from cells in the roof of the embryonic cavity. In lampreys, the gut develops from cells on the floor of the cavity. And in frogs, the gut develops from cells from both the roof and the floor of the embryonic cavity. This discovery—that homologous structures can be produced by different developmental pathways—contradicts what we would expect to find if all vertebrates share a common ancestor. - Explore Evolution
Neo-Darwinism's Gene Homology Problem - video
“We know some cases where you have similar features that come from different genes, but we have lots and lots of cases where we have similar genes that give rise to very different features. I’ll give you an example: eyes. There’s a gene that’s similar in mice, octopuses, and fruit flies. If you look at a mouse eye and an octopus eye, there’s a superficial similarity, which is odd because nobody thinks their common ancestor had an eye like that. What’s more striking is if you look at a fruit fly’s eye – a compound eye with multiple facets – it’s totally different. Yet all three of these eyes depend on the same or very similar gene.”
{Icons of Evolution ~ Dr Jonathan Wells, molecular biologist}
Moreover, the 'central dogma' of evolution, of one gene coding for one type of protein product, is now known to not be true, for single genes are now shown to code for multiple protein products (as well, multiple genes are shown to code for a single protein products):

The Extreme Complexity Of Genes - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video
Time to Redefine the Concept of a Gene? - Sept. 10, 2012
Excerpt: As detailed in my second post on alternative splicing, there is one human gene that codes for 576 different proteins, and there is one fruit fly gene that codes for 38,016 different proteins!
While the fact that a single gene can code for so many proteins is truly astounding, we didn’t really know how prevalent alternative splicing is. Are there only a few genes that participate in it, or do most genes engage in it? The ENCODE data presented in reference 2 indicates that at least 75% of all genes participate in alternative splicing. They also indicate that the number of different proteins each gene makes varies significantly, with most genes producing somewhere between 2 and 25.
Based on these results, it seems clear that the RNA transcripts are the real carriers of genetic information. This is why some members of the ENCODE team are arguing that an RNA transcript, not a gene, should be considered the fundamental unit of inheritance.

Demise of the Gene - September 19, 2012
Excerpt: Although the gene has conventionally been viewed as the fundamental unit of genomic organization, on the basis of ENCODE data it is now compellingly argued that this unit is not the gene but rather the transcript (Washietl et al. 2007; Djebali et al. 2012a). On this view, genes represent a higher-order framework around which individual transcripts coalesce, creating a poly-functional entity that assumes different forms under different cellular states, guided by differential utilization of regulatory DNA. (What does our genome encode? John A. Stamatoyannopoulos Genome Res. 2012 22: 1602-1611.)

Human genes are multitaskers:
Abstract: Genome-wide surveys of gene expression in 15 different tissues and cell lines have revealed that up to 94% of human genes generate more than one (protein) product.

Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism - Alex Williams
Excerpt: Exons are not gene-specific but are modules that can be joined to many different RNA transcripts. One exon (i.e. a protein-making portion of one gene) can be used in combination with up to 33 different genes located on as many as 14 different chromosomes. This means that one exon can specify one part shared in common by many different proteins.

Researchers Crack 'Splicing Code,' Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity - May 2010
Excerpt: This code contains the biological rules that are used to govern how separate parts of a genetic message copied from a gene can be spliced together in different ways to produce different genetic messages (messenger RNAs). "For example, three neurexin genes can generate over 3,000 genetic messages that help control the wiring of the brain,,

Multiple genes code for high-molecular-mass rhoptry proteins of Plasmodium yoelii
Excerpt: The genes in the family were distributed on 6 chromosomes probably at 9 or more loci.
Moreover, the same protein is found to have, in many instances, different functions:
Human Genes: Alternative Splicing (For Proteins) Far More Common Than Thought:
Excerpt: two different forms of the same protein, known as isoforms, can have different, even completely opposite functions. For example, one protein may activate cell death pathways while its close relative promotes cell survival.

Genes Code For Many Layers of Information - They May Have Just Discovered Another - Cornelius Hunter - January 21, 2013
Excerpt: “protein multifunctionality is more the rule than the exception.” In fact, “Perhaps all proteins perform many different functions by employing as many different mechanisms."

Explaining how a protein can perform multiple roles - Cell Biology - December 18, 2009
Excerpt: It’s been known for more than a decade that some cell proteins can carry out multiple functions. For example, it was discovered in 1999 that the protein TyrRS (explained shortly) participated not only in the building of enzymes, but also could function to stimulate the growth of blood vessels. Discovering that the same protein could perform very different roles opened one of the great new chapters in molecular biology.

Synonymous "Silent" mutations are not always silent - Mutations leading to identical amino acid sequences can change protein folding and function By Charles Q. Choi | December 21, 2006
Excerpt: A mutation in a human gene that does not change the resulting amino acid can nevertheless change a protein’s function, according to an online report from Science. The research marks the first time that the phenomenon has been confirmed in mammals. “The habit we all have of disregarding nucleotide changes that don’t change protein sequence may not be a good one,” coauthor Michael Gottesman at the National Cancer Institute in Bethesda, Md., told The Scientist. “This may be a generalizable phenomenon that may lead to changes in function we haven’t been thinking about.”

Now Evolution Must Have Evolved Different Functions Simultaneously in the Same Protein - Cornelius Hunter - December 1, 2012
Excerpt: LysRS has two different structural and functional states. When not phosphorylated LysRS is a crucial part of the translation process, supplying lysine amino acids to tRNA molecules. When phosphorylated it regulates gene expression. This is a major problem for evolutionary theory.
Another point worth reiterating is, at the protein level, 80% of proteins are found to be different in chimps and humans:
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:
The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species.
Amazingly, this evidence is just brushed aside as insignificant by many materialists since some of the proteins differ by only a few amino acids. Yet, since the '1-Dimensional' genetic code is shown to not even code for body plans in the first place, and proteins are at least 3-Dimensional in their configuration, as the actual bodies of the chimps and humans being compared are 3 dimensional, then this shows the 80% difference in proteins should at least carry more weight of consideration, over the genetic code, when considering similarities of the 3-Dimensional body plans in the first place.
Researchers Uncover New Kink In Gene Control: - Oct. 2009
Excerpt: a collaborative effort,, has uncovered more than 300 proteins that appear to control genes, a newly discovered function for all of these proteins previously known to play other roles in cells.,,,The team suspects that many more proteins encoded by the human genome might also be moonlighting to control genes,,,
In further evidence, using the very biased and misleading 'only protein coding genes count' methodology of materialists, our DNA is 92% similar to mice as well as 92% similar to zebrafish (Simmons PhD., Billions of Missing Links). So are we 92% mouse or are we 92% zebrafish?

This following article in 'New Scientist', which I've listed previously, has a totally different conclusion on what comparing genes proves about evolution:
"Why Darwin was wrong about the tree of life," New Scientist (January 21, 2009)
Excerpt: “Phylogenetic incongruities [conflicts] can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.”,,, “We’ve just annihilated the (Darwin's) tree of life.”
This following study reveals that genes can't even be resolved to the hypothetical mammalian tree of life.
A article in - Trends in Ecology and Evolution - concluded
“the wealth of competing morphological, as well as molecular proposals of the prevailing phylogenies of the mammalian orders would reduce the mammalian tree to an unresolved bush, the only consistent clade probably being the grouping of elephants and sea cows.
W. W. De Jong, “Molecules remodel the mammalian tree,” - Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol 13(7), pgs. 270-274 (July 7, 1998).
From a standpoint of basic scientific evidence, if one were to actually try to prove the evolution of man from apes true, it must be first found if random mutations can do all that evolution requires of them to do before we can infer whether materialistic evolution, of increased functional complexity, is even viable as a hypothesis in the first place. The primary evidence that is crushing to the evolutionary hypothesis is this fact. Of the random mutations that do occur, and have manifested traits in organisms which can be measured, it appears at least 999,999 out of 1,000,000 (99.9999%) of these mutations to the DNA have been found to produce traits in organisms which are slightly deleterious, harmful and/or fatal to the life-form having the mutation. (Gerrish and Lenski, 1998, Bataillon, 2000, Elena et al, 1998).
Professional evolutionary biologists are hard-pressed to cite even one clear-cut example of evolution through a beneficial mutation to the DNA of humans which would violate the principle of genetic entropy. Although a materialist may try to claim the lactase persistence mutation as a lonely example of a 'truly' beneficial mutation in humans, lactase persistence is actually a loss of a instruction in the genome to turn the lactase enzyme off, so the mutation clearly does not violate Genetic Entropy (nor Dr. Michael Behe's 'Edge Of Evolution').
Got milk? Research finds evidence of dairy farming 7,000 years ago in Sahara
Excerpt: In premature babies, the gene coding for lactase is sometimes not yet active. And in much of the world’s population, the gene is downregulated after weaning, eventually producing some degree of lactose intolerance. Those whose genes are not downregulated are said to have “lactase persistence.” However, even lactose-intolerant people still have genes coding for lactase enzyme; they are just switched off.
In an adult with lactase persistence, one or both alleles of the lactase gene remain switched on.
Loss of an instruction (information) to downregulate the gene and only one or two alleles were involved? Moreover there is very good reason to believe that ‘non-random’ epigenetic factors were involved in the mutational process! Not something for Darwinists to crow about. But then again if they must rely on this type of evidence to try to make their case for ‘Darwinian’ evolution within humans, where not even a single gene was created, then they really have nothing at all to point to as evidence for Darwinian evolution for humans.

Moreover lactase persistence clearly appears to be a 'designed mutation' that has 'serendipitously' originated independently three different times:
Convergent adaptation of human lactase persistence in Africa and Europe
Excerpt: We conducted a genotype-phenotype association study in 470 Tanzanians, Kenyans and Sudanese and identified three SNPs (G/C-14010, T/G-13915 and C/G-13907) that are associated with lactase persistence and that have derived alleles that significantly enhance transcription from the LCT promoter in vitro. These SNPs originated on different haplotype backgrounds from the European C/T-13910 SNP and from each other.

Adult Lactose Tolerance Is Not an Advantageous Evolutionary Trait - Juan Brines, MD
Excerpt: In short, evidence does not support the evolutionary hypothesis of lactase persistence in human adults as a consequence of selection. A founder effect could be a more suitable explanation to justify this trait, and this mechanism does not need the cooperation of natural selection.
Of related note:
Visual training improves underwater vision in children – 2006
Excerpt: We also show that European children can achieve the same underwater acuity as the Moken children.

Critic ignores reality of Genetic Entropy - Dr John Sanford - 7 March 2013
Excerpt: Where are the beneficial mutations in man? It is very well documented that there are thousands of deleterious Mendelian mutations accumulating in the human gene pool, even though there is strong selection against such mutations. Yet such easily recognized deleterious mutations are just the tip of the iceberg. The vast majority of deleterious mutations will not display any clear phenotype at all. There is a very high rate of visible birth defects, all of which appear deleterious. Again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. Why are no beneficial birth anomalies being seen? This is not just a matter of identifying positive changes. If there are so many beneficial mutations happening in the human population, selection should very effectively amplify them. They should be popping up virtually everywhere. They should be much more common than genetic pathologies. Where are they? European adult lactose tolerance appears to be due to a broken lactase promoter [see Can’t drink milk? You’re ‘normal’! Ed.].
African resistance to malaria is due to a broken hemoglobin protein [see Sickle-cell disease. Also, immunity of an estimated 20% of western Europeans to HIV infection is due to a broken chemokine receptor—see CCR5-delta32: a very beneficial mutation. Ed.] Beneficials happen, but generally they are loss-of-function mutations, and even then they are very rare!

Daily thought: blue eyes and other gene mutations, April 25, 2013
Excerpt: "Research on blue-eyes has led many scientist to further affirm that humans are truly mere variations of the same origin. About 8% of the world's total population has blue eyes so blue eyes are fairly rare. In fact, blue eyes are actually a gene mutation that scientist have researched and found to have happened when the OCA2 gene "turned off the ability to produce brown eyes."
Yet at the same time, the evidence for the detrimental nature of mutations in humans is overwhelming for scientists have already cited over 100,000 mutational disorders.
Inside the Human Genome: A Case for Non-Intelligent Design - Pg. 57 By John C. Avise
Excerpt: "Another compilation of gene lesions responsible for inherited diseases is the web-based Human Gene Mutation Database (HGMD). Recent versions of HGMD describe more than 75,000 different disease causing mutations identified to date in Homo-sapiens."
I went to the mutation database website cited by John Avise and found:
HGMD®: Now celebrating our 100,000 mutation milestone!
I really question their use of the word 'celebrating'. (Of note, apparently someone with a sense of decency has now removed the word 'celebrating')
"Mutations" by Dr. Gary Parker
Excerpt: human beings are now subject to over 3500 mutational disorders. (of note: this 3500 figure is cited from the late 1980's)

“Our Missing Genes” - The Scientist - February 18, 2012
Excerpt: On average, a person will have about 20 genes that are completely “lost”—meaning that both alleles have inactivating mutations.

Human Genome in Meltdown - January 11, 2013
Excerpt: According to a study published Jan. 10 in Nature by geneticists from 4 universities including Harvard, “Analysis of 6,515 exomes reveals the recent origin of most human protein-coding variants.”,,,:
"We estimate that approximately 73% of all protein-coding SNVs [single-nucleotide variants] and approximately 86% of SNVs predicted to be deleterious arose in the past 5,000 -10,000 years. The average age of deleterious SNVs varied significantly across molecular pathways, and disease genes contained a significantly higher proportion of recently arisen deleterious SNVs than other genes.",,,
As for advantageous mutations, they provided NO examples,,,
How Could Mutations Create the Huge Volumes of Information in the DNA of Living Things? - video

Human Evolution or Human Genetic Entropy? - Dr. John Sanford - video

This following study highlights the 'princess and the pea' paradox mentioned by Dr. Sanford in the previous video:
The GS (genetic selection) Principle - David L. Abel - 2009
Excerpt: The GS (Genetic Selection) Principle states that biological selection must occur at the nucleotide-sequencing molecular-genetic level of 3'5' phosphodiester bond formation. After-the-fact differential survival and reproduction of already-living phenotypic organisms (ordinary natural selection) does not explain polynucleotide prescription and coding.
This following study confirmed the detrimental mutation rate for humans, of 100 to 300 per generation, estimated by John Sanford in his book 'Genetic Entropy' in 2005:
Human mutation rate revealed: August 2009
Every time human DNA is passed from one generation to the next it accumulates 100–200 new mutations, according to a DNA-sequencing analysis of the Y chromosome.
Yet this more recent study found a slightly lower figure than Dr. Sanford’s estimate:

We Are All Mutants: First Direct Whole-Genome Measure of Human Mutation Predicts 60 New Mutations in Each of Us - June 2011
Human Mutation Clock Half Off - October 20, 2012
Excerpt: New studies have shown about 36 mutations between generations in Icelandic families. The rates seem to be converging on “1.2 × 10−8 mutations per generation at any given nucleotide site,” or “1 in 2.4 billion mutations per site per year,” which is less than half the previous estimate.

Human mutation rate slower than thought - Moms and dads not equal in passing down genetic typos - June 2011
Excerpt: the rate indicates that, on average, about one DNA chemical letter in every 85 million gets mutated per generation through copying mistakes made during sperm and egg production. The new rate means each child inherits somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 to 50 new mutations.,,,
Here's a interesting talk by Dr. John Sanford. Starting at the 17 minute mark going to the 22 minute mark. He relates how slightly detrimental mutations, that accumulate each time a cell divides, are the primary reason why our physical/material bodies grow old and die.

John Sanford on (Genetic Entropy) - Down, Not Up - 2-4-2012 (at Loma Linda University) - video

Notes from John Sanford's preceding video:
*3 new mutations every time a cell divides in your body
* Average cell of 15 year old has up to 6000 mutations
*Average cell of 60 year old has 40,000 mutations
Reproductive cells are 'designed' so that, early on in development, they are 'set aside' and thus they do not accumulate mutations as the rest of the cells of our bodies do. Regardless of this protective barrier against the accumulation of slightly detrimental mutations still we find that,,,
*60-175 mutations are passed on to each new generation.
This following video brings the point personally home to us about the effects of genetic entropy:

Aging Process - 85 years in 40 seconds - video

Here are the papers that were cited by Dr. Sanford in the preceding 'Down, Not Up' video at the 24:40 minute mark:
The high spontaneous mutation rate: Is it a health risk?* - James F. Crow - 1997
Excerpt: If war or famine force our descendants to return to a stone-age life they will have to contend with all the problems that their stone-age ancestors had plus mutations that have accumulated in the meantime.

Contamination of the genome by very slightly deleterious mutations:
why have we not died 100 times over? Kondrashov A.S.

Why are we still alive? - LAURENCE LOEWE - Institute of Evolutionary Biology, School of Biological Sciences, University of Edinburgh, - 2006
Excerpt: In the last few years evolution@home has accumulated over 100 years of computing time in its quest for a better understanding of the consequences of mutations that are slightly harmful and therefore might not be removed from populations by natural selection.,,, Results show that this may be less than 20 million years, resulting in a genomic decay paradox, since mitochondria in the human line are (presupposed to be) older.

Rate, molecular spectrum, and consequences of human mutation - Michael Lynch - 2009
Excerpt: Thus, although there is considerable uncertainty in the preceding numbers, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the per-generation reduction in fitness due to recurrent mutation is at least 1% in humans and quite possibly as high as 5%.
Mutation Malfunctions and Eve with Dr. Robert Carter - video

This following study confirms that detrimental mutations accumulate in our bodies as we grow older:
Autism Studies Confirm Genetic Complexity and Risk for Older Fathers - April 2012
Excerpt: That may be because the older men are, the more times their sperm-creating cells have copied themselves, and each time a cell is copied, there is a chance that a mutation will occur. Previous studies have found that men over 50 have double the risk of having an autistic child, compared with those under 30, and the odds are four times greater for those over 55.
Interestingly, this ‘slightly detrimental’ mutation rate of 100 to 200, or even 60, per generation is far greater than what even evolutionists agree is an acceptable mutation rate since detrimental mutations will accumulate far faster than ‘selection’ can eliminate them in any given genome:

Human evolution or extinction - discussion on acceptable mutation rate per generation (with clips from Dr. John Sanford) - video
"it would in the end be far easier and more sensible to manufacture a complete man de novo, out of appropriately chosen raw materials, than to try to fashion into human form those pitiful relics which remained…
it is evident that the natural rate of mutation of man is so high, and his natural rate of reproduction so low, that not a great deal of margin is left for selection…
it becomes perfectly evident that the present number of children per couple cannot be great enough to allow selection to keep pace with a mutation rate of 0.1..if, to make matters worse, u should be anything like as high as 0.5…, our present reproductive practices would be utterly out of line with human requirements."

Hermann Muller quoted by John Sanford; Appendix 1, Genetic Entropy

No Matter What Type Of Selection, Mutations Deteriorate Genetic Information - article and animation
Excerpt: The animation asserts that if harmful mutation rates are high enough, then there exists no form or mechanism of selection which can arrest genetic deterioration. Even if the harmful mutations do not reach population fixation, they can still damage the collective genome.,,,
Nobel Prize winner HJ Muller (of Muller’s ratchet fame) suggested that the human race can’t even cope with a harmful rate of 0.1 (mutations) per new born. The actual rate has been speculated to be on the order of 100-300.
The animation uses a conservative harmful rate of 1 and argues (with some attempts at humor) that deterioration would thus be inevitable even with a harmful rate of 1 per new born.

Beyond A 'Speed Limit' On Mutations, Species Risk Extinction
Excerpt: Shakhnovich's group found that for most organisms, including viruses and bacteria, an organism's rate of genome mutation must stay below 6 mutations per genome per generation to prevent the accumulation of too many potentially lethal changes in genetic material.
Genetic Entropy vs. Evolution - The Stark Reality - video

Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome" 1/2 - video
Genetic Entropy in Human Genome is found to be 'recent':
Human Genetic Variation Recent, Varies Among Populations - (Nov. 28, 2012)
Excerpt: Nearly three-quarters of mutations in genes that code for proteins -- the workhorses of the cell -- occurred within the past 5,000 to 10,000 years,,,
"One of the most interesting points is that Europeans have more new deleterious (potentially disease-causing) mutations than Africans,",,,
"Having so many of these new variants can be partially explained by the population explosion in the European population. However, variation that occur in genes that are involved in Mendelian traits and in those that affect genes essential to the proper functioning of the cell tend to be much older." (A Mendelian trait is controlled by a single gene. Mutations in that gene can have devastating effects.) The amount variation or mutation identified in protein-coding genes (the exome) in this study is very different from what would have been seen 5,000 years ago,,,
The report shows that "recent" events have a potent effect on the human genome. Eighty-six percent of the genetic variation or mutations that are expected to be harmful arose in European-Americans in the last five thousand years, said the researchers.
The researchers used established bioinformatics techniques to calculate the age of more than a million changes in single base pairs (the A-T, C-G of the genetic code) that are part of the exome or protein-coding portion of the genomes (human genetic blueprint) of 6,515 people of both European-American and African-American decent.,,,
Of Note: Recently new rare 'beneficial' mutations were found in Tibetans that have allowed them to survive in extremely high altitudes, with less oxygen. Yet once again the new 'beneficial mutations' are actually found to be 'slightly detrimnetal' because they in fact result in a limit on the red cell blood count for Tibetans:
Tibetans Developed Genes to Help Them Adapt to Life at High Elevations - May 2010
Excerpt: "What's unique about Tibetans is they don't develop high red blood cells counts,"
Yet high red blood cell counts are found to be good,,
Extremely fit individuals may have higher values—significantly more red cells in their bodies and significantly more oxygen-carrying capacity—but still maintain normal hematocrit values.
,,,Thus they were actually incorrect to imply that all high red blood cell counts found in humans are detrimental,,, Thus this is clearly another example of a loss of overall functional information, and fitness, for the human genome.

This following article goes into more detail and points out many other inconsistencies with the Tibetan mutations that evaporate any claim for evidence of a 'truly' beneficial mutation:

Tibetans Evolved Altitude Tolerance in 3,000 Years? - July 2010

As well neo-Darwinism presupposes that the 'beneficial mutations' which conferred the advantage for Tibetans to live at high altitudes was completely random, yet when looked at from the point of population genetics, the evidence gives every indication that the 'beneficial mutations' were not random at all but were in fact 'programmed' mutations:
Another Darwinian “Prediction” Bites the Dust - PaV - August 2010
Excerpt: this means the probability of all three sites changing “at once” (6.25 X 10^-9)^2 = approx. 4 X 10^-17 specific bp change/ yr. IOW (In Other Words), for that size population, and this is a very reasonable guess for size, it would take almost twice the life of the universe for them to take place “at once”. Thus, the invocation of “randomness” in this whole process is pure nonsense. We’re dealing with some kind of programmed response if, in fact, “polygenic selection” is taking place. And, that, of course, means design.
Such a overwhelming propensity for things to devolve (lose functional complexity) instead of evolve (gain functional complexity) is apparently no problem for committed Darwinists. It turns out, in the Darwinian scheme of things, now you just claim that de-evolution is evolution:
Evolution, You’re Drunk (Go Home) - January 30. 2014
Excerpt: When asked whether de-evolution, a reversal from the complex to the simple, happens frequently, Dunn replies, sure. “But,” he adds, “I wouldn’t call that de-evolution, I’d call it evolution.”
Also from the preceding article, Jernvall’s team induced mutations in genes involved in tooth formation in mice, and found that most of the mutations caused teeth to become simpler than they usually are. To form a more complex tooth (with more bumps), the team had to induce multiple molecular changes at once. The results suggest that reductions in complexity should evolve more easily than increases in complexity.

On the difficulty of increasing dental complexity - 2012

Even if a truly beneficial random mutation/variation event to the DNA ever did occur, ignoring the fact that that the DNA doesn't solely control encoding for body plans, the 'beneficial mutation' would still be of absolutely no use for a Darwinian scenario because the mutation would be swallowed in the vast ocean of slightly detrimental mutations which are far below the culling power of natural selection to remove from a genome. these following studies make this point clear:
The Frailty of the Darwinian Hypothesis
"The net effect of genetic drift in such (vertebrate) populations is “to encourage the fixation of mildly deleterious mutations and discourage the promotion of beneficial mutations,”

High genomic deleterious mutation rates in hominids
Excerpt: Furthermore, the level of selective constraint in hominid protein-coding sequences is atypically (unusually) low. A large number of slightly deleterious mutations may therefore have become fixed in hominid lineages.

High Frequency of Cryptic Deleterious Mutations in Caenorhabditis elegans ( Esther K. Davies, Andrew D. Peters, Peter D. Keightley)
"In fitness assays, only about 4 percent of the deleterious mutations fixed in each line were detectable. The remaining 96 percent, though cryptic, are significant for mutation load...the presence of a large class of mildly deleterious mutations can never be ruled out."
All life eventually succumbs to the effects of Genetic Entropy, but humans are especially vulnerable. As This following study reveals:
Sanford’s pro-ID thesis supported by PNAS paper, read it and weep, literally - September 2010
Excerpt: Unfortunately, it has become increasingly clear that most of the mutation load is associated with mutations with very small effects distributed at unpredictable locations over the entire genome, rendering the prospects for long-term management of the human gene pool by genetic counseling highly unlikely for all but perhaps a few hundred key loci underlying debilitating monogenic genetic disorders (such as those focused on in the present study).
Bacteria have smaller genomes and higher reproduction rates therefore are substantially more immune to Genetic Entropy. Whereas humans are much more sensitive to the effects of Genetic Entropy due to a much smaller reproduction rate. One viable bacteria out of a population of bad can “rescue” the bacterial population because of the high reproduction rate relative to the size of its genome. It’s not the same for humans.,,, But with respect to bacteria, here is a relevant experiment that shows if the bacterial population is small enough, it can go extinct via genetic entropy:


Here is a relevant paper on genetic entropy in other species:

Muller's Ratchet and compensatory mutation in Caenorhabditis briggsae mitochondrial genome evolution

As well, the slow accumulation of 'slightly detrimental mutations' in humans, that is 'slightly detrimental mutations' which are far below the power of natural selection to remove from our genomes, is revealed by these following facts:
“When first cousins marry, their children have a reduction of life expectancy of nearly 10 years. Why is this? It is because inbreeding exposes the genetic mistakes within the genome (slightly detrimental recessive mutations) that have not yet had time to “come to the surface”. Inbreeding is like a sneak preview, or foreshadowing, of where we are going to be genetically as a whole as a species in the future. The reduced life expectancy of inbred children reflects the overall aging of the genome that has accumulated thus far, and reveals the hidden reservoir of genetic damage that have been accumulating in our genomes."
Sanford; Genetic Entropy; page 147

Children of incest - Journal of Pediatrics
Abstract: Twenty-nine children of brother-sister or father-daughter matings were studied. Twenty-one were ascertained because of the history of incest, eight because of signs or symptoms in the child. In the first group of 21 children, 12 had abnormalities, which were severe in nine (43%). In one of these the disorder was autosomal recessive. All eight of the group referred with signs or symptoms had abnormalities, three from recessive disorders. The high empiric risk for severe problems in the children of such close consanguineous matings should be borne in mind, as most of these infants are relinquished for adoption.
Inbreeding is also a very big problem that must be carefully guarded against in animal husbandry in selecting for desired, inherent, traits, and inbreeding is also witnessed to be a major problem for some natural populations:
Inbreeding - Pros and cons
Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise.
Man has over 3 billion base pairs of DNA code. Even if it were true that body plans were directly encoded by information in the DNA code, and even if it were true that there was only 1% difference between the DNA of chimps and humans, that would still be 30 million base pairs of DNA difference. It is easily shown, mathematically, for it to be fantastically impossible for evolution to ever occur between monkeys and man, or monkeys and anything else for that matter, even with these generous assumptions given to Darwinists. Since, it is now a clearly established fact at least 999,999 in 1,000,000 of any mutations to the DNA code will be slightly detrimental, harmful and/or fatal for the organism, then it is also an obvious fact there is at least a 999,999^30,000,000 to 1 chance that any monkey will fail to reach man by evolutionary processes. The monkey will hit a dead end of slightly detrimental, harmful and/or fatal mutations which will kill him, or slowly mutilate him before killing him. The poor monkey barely even gets out of the hypothetical evolutionary starting gate before he is crushed by blind chance. This would still be true even if the entire universe were populated with nothing but monkeys to begin with. This number (999,999^30,000,000 to 1), is fantastically impossible for any hypothetical beneficial mutation to ever overcome. Even if we granted to Darwinists that half the mutations are beneficial, they still would run into insurmountable mathematical difficulties:
God by the Numbers - Charles Edward White
Excerpt: "Even if we limit the number of necessary mutations to 1,000 and argue that half of these mutations are beneficial, the odds against getting 1,000 beneficial mutations in the proper order is 2^1000. Expressed in decimal form, this number is about 10^301. 10^301 mutations is a number far beyond the capacity of the universe to generate. Even if every particle in the universe mutated at the fastest possible rate and had done so since the Big Bang, there still would not be enough mutations."
Indeed, math is not kind to Darwinism in the least when considering the probability of humans 'randomly' evolving:
In Barrow and Tippler's book The Anthropic Cosmological Principle, they list ten steps necessary in the course of human evolution, each of which, is so improbable that if left to happen by chance alone, the sun would have ceased to be a main sequence star and would have incinerated the earth. They estimate that the odds of the evolution (by chance) of the human genome is somewhere between 4 to the negative 180th power, to the 110,000th power, and 4 to the negative 360th power, to the 110,000th power. Therefore, if evolution did occur, it literally would have been a miracle and evidence for the existence of God. William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig - If Human Evolution Did Occur It Was A Miracle - video

Along that same line:
Darwin and the Mathematicians - David Berlinski
“The formation within geological time of a human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field, is as unlikely as the separation by chance of the atmosphere into its components.”
Kurt Gödel, was a preeminent mathematician who is considered one of the greatest to have ever lived. Of Note: Godel was a Theist!
Dr. David Berlinski: Head Scratching Mathematicians - video

quote from preceding video:
“John Von Neumann, one of the great mathematicians of the twentieth century, just laughed at Darwinian theory, he hooted at it!”
Dr. David Berlinski

"On the other hand, I disagree that Darwin's theory is as `solid as any explanation in science.; Disagree? I regard the claim as preposterous. Quantum electrodynamics is accurate to thirteen or so decimal places; so, too, general relativity. A leaf trembling in the wrong way would suffice to shatter either theory. What can Darwinian theory offer in comparison?"
(Berlinski, D., "A Scientific Scandal?: David Berlinski & Critics," Commentary, July 8, 2003)

Oxford University Seeks Mathemagician — May 5th, 2011 by Douglas Axe
Excerpt: "Grand theories in physics are usually expressed in mathematics. Newton’s mechanics and Einstein’s theory of special relativity are essentially equations. Words are needed only to interpret the terms. Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection has obstinately remained in words since 1859."

WHAT SCIENTIFIC IDEA IS READY FOR RETIREMENT? Evolution is True - Roger Highfield - January 2014
Excerpt: If evolutionary biologists are really Seekers of the Truth, they need to focus more on finding the mathematical regularities of biology, following in the giant footsteps of Sewall Wright, JBS Haldane, Ronald Fisher and so on.
The messiness of biology has made it relatively hard to discern the mathematical fundamentals of evolution. Perhaps the laws of biology are deductive consequences of the laws of physics and chemistry. Perhaps natural selection is not a statistical consequence of physics, but a new and fundamental physical law. Whatever the case, those universal truths—'laws'—that physicists and chemists all rely upon appear relatively absent from biology.
Little seems to have changed from a decade ago when the late and great John Maynard Smith wrote a chapter on evolutionary game theory for a book on the most powerful equations of science: his contribution did not include a single equation.

The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences - Eugene Wigner - 1960
Excerpt: ,,certainly it is hard to believe that our reasoning power was brought, by Darwin's process of natural selection, to the perfection which it seems to possess.,,,

"For many years I thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have a proof that Darwinian evolution works."
Gregory Chaitin - Proving Darwin 2012 - Highly Respected Mathematician

Active Information in Metabiology – Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, Robert J. Marks II – 2013
Except page 9: Chaitin states [3], “For many years I have thought that it is a mathematical scandal that we do not have proof that Darwinian evolution works.” In fact, mathematics has consistently demonstrated that undirected Darwinian evolution does not work.

Nobel Prize-Winning Physicist Wolfgang Pauli on the Empirical Problems with Neo-Darwinism - Casey Luskin - February 27, 2012
Excerpt: "In discussions with biologists I met large difficulties when they apply the concept of 'natural selection' in a rather wide field, without being able to estimate the probability of the occurrence in a empirically given time of just those events, which have been important for the biological evolution. Treating the empirical time scale of the evolution theoretically as infinity they have then an easy game, apparently to avoid the concept of purposesiveness. While they pretend to stay in this way completely 'scientific' and 'rational,' they become actually very irrational, particularly because they use the word 'chance', not any longer combined with estimations of a mathematically defined probability, in its application to very rare single events more or less synonymous with the old word 'miracle.'" Wolfgang Pauli (pp. 27-28) -

Murray Eden, as reported in “Heresy in the Halls of Biology: Mathematicians Question Darwinism,” Scientific Research, November 1967, p. 64.
“It is our contention that if ‘random’ is given a serious and crucial interpretation from a probabilistic point of view, the randomness postulate is highly implausible and that an adequate scientific theory of evolution must await the discovery and elucidation of new natural laws—physical, physico-chemical, and biological.”
Murray Eden, “Inadequacies of Neo-Darwinian Evolution as a Scientific Theory,” Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution, editors Paul S. Moorhead and Martin M. Kaplan, June 1967, p. 109.

Excerpt: A number of mathematicians, familiar with the biological problems, spoke at that 1966 Wistar Institute,, For example, Murray Eden showed that it would be impossible for even a single ordered pair of genes to be produced by DNA mutations in the bacteria, E. coli,—with 5 billion years in which to produce it! His estimate was based on 5 trillion tons of the bacteria covering the planet to a depth of nearly an inch during that 5 billion years. He then explained that the genes of E. coli contain over a trillion (10^12) bits of data. That is the number 10 followed by 12 zeros. *Eden then showed the mathematical impossibility of protein forming by chance.
No Mathematical Demarcation, nor Foundational Empirical Support, for Darwinian Claims:
“Darwin’s theory is easily the dumbest idea ever taken seriously by science."
Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas - El Paso

"You might think that a theory so profound would be laden with intimidating mathematical formulas and at least as difficult to master as Newton’s Mechanics or Einsteins Relativity. But such is not the case. Darwinism is the most accessible “scientific” theory ever proposed. It needs no math, no mastery of biology, no depth of understanding on any level. The dullest person can understand the basic story line: “Some mistakes are good. When enough good mistakes accumulate you get a new species. If you let the mistakes run long enough, you get every complicated living thing descending from one simple living thing in the beginning. There is no need for God in this process. In fact there is no need for God at all. So the Bible, which claims that God is important, is wrong.” You can be drunk, addled, or stupid and still understand this. And the real beauty of it is that when you first glimpse this revelation with its “aha!” moment, you feel like an Einstein yourself. You feel superior, far superior, to those religious nuts who still believe in God. Without having paid any dues whatsoever, you breathe the same rarified air as the smartest people who have ever lived."
– Laszlo Bencze

Waiting Longer for Two Mutations - Michael J. Behe
Excerpt: Citing malaria literature sources (White 2004) I had noted that the de novo appearance of chloroquine resistance in Plasmodium falciparum was an event of probability of 1 in 10^20. I then wrote that 'for humans to achieve a mutation like this by chance, we would have to wait 100 million times 10 million years' (1 quadrillion years)(Behe 2007) (because that is the extrapolated time that it would take to produce 10^20 humans). Durrett and Schmidt (2008, p. 1507) retort that my number ‘is 5 million times larger than the calculation we have just given’ using their model (which nonetheless "using their model" gives a prohibitively long waiting time of 216 million years). Their criticism compares apples to oranges. My figure of 10^20 is an empirical statistic from the literature; it is not, as their calculation is, a theoretical estimate from a population genetics model.

The Real Barrier to Unguided Human Evolution - Ann Gauger - April 25, 2012
Excerpt: Their results? They calculated it would take six million years for a single base change to match the target and spread throughout the population, and 216 million years to get both base changes necessary to complete the eight base binding site. Note that the entire time span for our evolution from the last common ancestor with chimps is estimated to be about six million years. Time enough for one mutation to occur and be fixed, by their account.
To be sure, they did say that since there are some 20,000 genes that could be evolving simultaneously, the problem is not impossible. But they overlooked this point. Mutations occur at random and most of the time independently, but their effects are not independent. (Random) Mutations that benefit one trait (are shown to) inhibit another (Negative Epistasis; Lenski e-coli after 50,000 generations).

More from Ann Gauger on why humans didn’t happen the way Darwin said - July 2012
Excerpt: Each of these new features probably required multiple mutations. Getting a feature that requires six neutral mutations is the limit of what bacteria can produce. For primates (e.g., monkeys, apes and humans) the limit is much more severe. Because of much smaller effective population sizes (an estimated ten thousand for humans instead of a billion for bacteria) and longer generation times (fifteen to twenty years per generation for humans vs. a thousand generations per year for bacteria), it would take a very long time for even a single beneficial mutation to appear and become fixed in a human population.
You don’t have to take my word for it. In 2007, Durrett and Schmidt estimated in the journal Genetics that for a single mutation to occur in a nucleotide-binding site and be fixed in a primate lineage would require a waiting time of six million years. The same authors later estimated it would take 216 million years for the binding site to acquire two mutations, if the first mutation was neutral in its effect.
Facing Facts
But six million years is the entire time allotted for the transition from our last common ancestor with chimps to us according to the standard evolutionary timescale. Two hundred and sixteen million years takes us back to the Triassic, when the very first mammals appeared. One or two mutations simply aren’t sufficient to produce the necessary changes— sixteen anatomical features—in the time available. At most, a new binding site might affect the regulation of one or two genes.

Why Evolution Is Misunderstood - P.J. Levi - March 4, 2013
Excerpt: Consider the evolution of humans and chimps from a common ancestor, to which Coyne in his talk referred several times. Rather than offering evidence for such common ancestry, Coyne simply took it as a fact and then used it to support Darwinian selection. Yet the ubiquity of selection in creating these species makes little sense at the level of DNA -- the very level at which heritable change (evolution) occurs. By current estimates, the genomes of these two species differ by at least 300 million nucleotides. Given the premise that humans and chimps shared a common ancestor 6 million years ago, such a degree of divergence can only be accounted for by an average of 25 nucleotide changes per year in each line of descent.
For Coyne's gradual version of the Darwinian mechanism to account for these differences, 25 new mutations would have to appear, conferring a reproductive advantage, and spread through each population every year. Yet even 25 advantageous substitutions per generation is unfathomable.

Human Evolution: A Facebook Dialog - By Ann Gauger - Nov. 12, 2012
Excerpt: PM:Is it also possible that the mechanism that you refer to in your video clip is not the only/main one at play?
Biologic: The mechanism I refer to is based on the standard Darwinian model for evolution. Published population genetics estimates for how long it would take to make *and fix* a single base change to a DNA binding site in a 1 kb segment of DNA are prohibitively long—six million years. To get a second mutation in the same DNA binding site would take in excess of 200 million years.
Now to go from hominid to human requires many changes, most of them to gene expression patterns. It is much easier to change the DNA binding site than to change the transcription factor’s specificity. And all these mutations must work together and be beneficial to the evolving organism. The window of time available according to the fossil record and phylogenetic estimates is too short for known mechanisms to be sufficient. So do I think there are are other things at play?
Does Deep Time Help Darwinism?

Douglas Axe co-author of Science & Human Origins - video

Don't Mess With ID (Overview of Behe's 'Edge' and Durrett and Schmidt's paper at the 20:00 minute mark) - Paul Giem - video

Science & Human Origins: Interview With Dr. Douglas Axe (podcast on the strict limits found for changing proteins to other very similar proteins) - July 2012

Can Darwin’s enemy, math, rescue him? - May 2011

The Value Of Probabilistic Arguments In The Debate Over Evolution - JonathanM - August 2011

JonathanM post another very good article on the sheer improbabilities against Darwinian evolution and the Darwinist's tendency to just ignore the clear implications of those sheer improbabilities against their beloved theory.
Evolution And Probabilities: A Response to Jason Rosenhouse - August 2011
Excerpt: The equations of population genetics predict that – assuming an effective population size of 100,000 individuals per generation, and a generation turnover time of 5 years – according to Richard Sternberg’s calculations and based on equations of population genetics applied in the Durrett and Schmidt paper, that one may reasonably expect two specific co-ordinated mutations to achieve fixation in the timeframe of around 43.3 million years. When one considers the magnitude of the engineering fete, such a scenario is found to be devoid of credibility.

Lynn Margulis Criticizes Neo-Darwinism in Discover Magazine (Updated) - Casey Luskin April 12, 2011
Excerpt: Population geneticist Richard Lewontin gave a talk here at UMass Amherst about six years ago, and he mathemetized all of it--changes in the population, random mutation, sexual selection, cost and benefit. At the end of his talk he said, "You know, we've tried to test these ideas in the field and the lab, and there are really no measurements that match the quantities I've told you about." This just appalled me. So I said, "Richard Lewontin, you are a great lecturer to have the courage to say it's gotten you nowhere. But then why do you continue to do this work?" And he looked around and said, "It's the only thing I know how to do, and if I don't do it I won't get grant money." -
Lynn Margulis - biologist

"Dr. Sanford calculates it would take 12 million years to “fix” a single base pair mutation into a population. He further calculates that to create a gene with 1000 base pairs, it would take 12 million x 1000 or 12 billion years. This is obviously too slow to support the creation of the human genome containing 3 billion base pairs."

Bernard d'Abrera on Butterfly Mimicry and the Faith of the Evolutionist - October 5, 2011
Excerpt: For it to happen in a single species once through chance, is mathematically highly improbable. But when it occurs so often, in so many species, and we are expected to apply mathematical probability yet again, then either mathematics is a useless tool, or we are being criminally blind.,,, Evolutionism (with its two eldest daughters, phylogenetics and cladistics) is the only systematic synthesis in the history of the universe that proposes an Effect without a Final Cause. It is a great fraud, and cannot be taken seriously because it outrageously attempts to defend the philosophically indefensible.

Here’s That Monumental Evolution Blunder About Probability Again - March 2012
Excerpt: Laplace didn’t rebuke this argument two centuries ago for no good reason—the fallacy has been around forever and evolutionists continue to employ it.,,, It is truly incredible to see evolutionists work their chicanery so they can uphold complete nonsense as the truth. So the evolutionists would credulously accept all manner of bizarre events. If all their roulette wheel bets turned out winners, if their poker hands always gave a royal flush, if random Scrabble letters spelled out CONSTANTINOPLE, it all would be just another small probability event from which nothing can be concluded. This monumental blunder leads them into all kinds of ridiculous conclusions:
The Mathematical Impossibility of Darwinian Evolution - William Dembski - video - Notes In Description

Of related note: Researchers have finally developed a mathematical model for molecular biology that has actual predictive power by ignoring the Darwinian ‘historical accidents’ presupposition and using a ‘top down’ physiological perspective instead:
Simple Math Sheds New Light On a Long-Studied Biological Process - Aug. 7, 2013
Excerpt: Hwa and his team arrived at their surprising finding by employing a new approach called "quantitative biology," in which scientists quantify biological data and discover mathematical patterns, which in turn guide them to develop predictive models of the underlying processes.
"This mode of research, an iterative dialogue between data quantitation and model building, has driven the progress of physics for the past several centuries, starting with Kepler's discovery of the law of planetary motion," explains Hwa. "However, it was long thought that biology is so laden with historical accidents which render the application of quantitative deduction intractable.",,,
"When we plotted our results, our jaws dropped," recalls Hwa. "The levels of the sugar uptake and utilization enzymes lined up remarkably into two crossing lines when plotted with the corresponding growth rates, with the enzyme level increasing upon carbon limitation and decreasing upon nitrogen and sulfur limitation. The enzyme levels followed the simple mathematical rules like a machine." ,,
Hwa points out that the physiological insights derived from simple mathematical relations guided them to figuring out both the strategy and molecular mechanisms their bacteria employ to coordinate carbon metabolism with those of other elements.,,
Moreover, insofar as math can be applied to Darwinian presuppositions, there are insurmountable problems for Darwinism that are found within population genetic models:
Haldane's Dilemma
Excerpt: Haldane was the first to recognize there was a cost to selection which limited what it realistically could be expected to do. He did not fully realize that his thinking would create major problems for evolutionary theory. He calculated that in man it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 mutations (assuming 20 years per generation).,,, Man and chimp differ by at least 150 million nucleotides representing at least 40 million hypothetical mutations (Britten, 2002). So if man evolved from a chimp-like creature, then during that process there were at least 20 million mutations fixed within the human lineage (40 million divided by 2), yet natural selection could only have selected for 1,000 of those. All the rest would have had to been fixed by random drift - creating millions of nearly-neutral deleterious mutations. This would not just have made us inferior to our chimp-like ancestors - it surely would have killed us. Since Haldane's dilemma there have been a number of efforts to sweep the problem under the rug, but the problem is still exactly the same. ReMine (1993, 2005) has extensively reviewed the problem, and has analyzed it using an entirely different mathematical formulation - but has obtained identical results.
John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 159-160

Kimura's Quandary
Excerpt: Kimura realized that Haldane was correct,,, He developed his neutral theory in responce to this overwhelming evolutionary problem. Paradoxically, his theory led him to believe that most mutations are unselectable, and therefore,,, most 'evolution' must be independent of selection! Because he was totally committed to the primary axiom (neo-Darwinism), Kimura apparently never considered his cost arguments could most rationally be used to argue against the Axiom's (neo-Darwinism's) very validity.
John Sanford PhD. - "Genetic Entropy and The Mystery of the Genome" - pg. 161 - 162
A graph featuring 'Kimura's Distribution' is shown in the following video:

Evolution Vs Genetic Entropy - Andy McIntosh - video
On Enzymes and Teleology - Ann Gauger - July 19, 2012
Excerpt: People have been saying for years, "Of course evolution isn't random, it's directed by natural selection. It's not chance, it's chance and necessity." But in recent years the rhetoric has changed. Now evolution is constrained. Not all options are open, and natural selection is not the major player, it's the happenstance of genetic drift that drives change. But somehow it all happens anyway, and evolution gets the credit.
The following study is very interesting for seeing what the Darwinists grudgingly admit to in it.
Populations survive despite many deleterious mutations: Scientists investigate evolutionary model of Muller's ratchet - August 10, 2012
Excerpt: From protozoans to mammals, evolution has created more and more complex structures and better-adapted organisms. This is all the more astonishing as most genetic mutations are deleterious. Especially in small asexual populations that do not recombine their genes, unfavourable mutations can accumulate. This process is known as Muller's ratchet in evolutionary biology. The ratchet, proposed by the American geneticist Hermann Joseph Muller, predicts that the genome deteriorates irreversibly, leaving populations on a one-way street to extinction. In collaboration with colleagues from the US, Richard Neher from the Max Planck Institute for Developmental Biology has shown mathematically how Muller's ratchet operates and he has investigated why populations are not inevitably doomed to extinction despite the continuous influx of deleterious mutations.,,,
If the number of the fittest individuals is reduced, the mean fitness decreases only after a delay. "This delayed feedback accelerates Muller's ratchet," Richard Neher comments on the results. It clicks more and more frequently. "Our results are valid for a broad range of conditions and parameter values – for a population of viruses as well as a population of tigers.",,, For their model the scientists assumed a steady environment and suggest that there can be a mutation-selection balance in every population. They have calculated the rate of favourable mutations required to maintain the balance. The result was surprising: Even under unfavourable conditions, a comparably small proportion in the range of several percent of positive mutations is sufficient to sustain a population.
The Darwinists who conducted the preceding study are essentially agreeing that Muller's Ratchet, which has been known about for several decades, is correct. Thus they agree that the overriding principle of Genetic Entropy is correct. But they try save face for Darwinism, to merely 'sustain' a population, by assuming a beneficial mutation rate of 'several percent'. This is a interesting unfounded assumption since no one has ever seen any truly random mutations that are unambiguously beneficial (of note; 'normal' compensatory mutations are not truly random but are somehow calculated by the 'higher level information' inherent within the genome), and even granting for the sake of argument that there are some truly random mutations that are beneficial these mutations, even in the most generous of assumptions, would still fall in the range of only 1 in a thousand to 1 in a million and are thus far below the 'several percent' they need to merely sustain a population in their model. Thus basically, despite the positive spin they try to put on their model, the fact is that these researchers have just confirmed what the evidence itself has been telling them for decades. Darwinism is 'unsustainable'!
Majestic Ascent: Berlinski on Darwin on Trial - David Berlinski - November 2011
Excerpt: The publication in 1983 of Motoo Kimura's The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution consolidated ideas that Kimura had introduced in the late 1960s. On the molecular level, evolution is entirely stochastic, and if it proceeds at all, it proceeds by drift along a leaves-and-current model. Kimura's theories left the emergence of complex biological structures an enigma, but they played an important role in the local economy of belief. They allowed biologists to affirm that they welcomed responsible criticism. "A critique of neo-Darwinism," the Dutch biologist Gert Korthof boasted, "can be incorporated into neo-Darwinism if there is evidence and a good theory, which contributes to the progress of science."
By this standard, if the Archangel Gabriel were to accept personal responsibility for the Cambrian explosion, his views would be widely described as neo-Darwinian.

Ann Gauger on genetic drift - August 2012
Excerpt: The idea that evolution is driven by drift has led to a way of retrospectively estimating past genetic lineages. Called coalescent theory, it is based on one very simple assumption — that the vast majority of mutations are neutral and have no effect on an organism’s survival. (For a review go here.) According to this theory, actual genetic history is presumed not to matter. Our genomes are full of randomly accumulating neutral changes. When generating a genealogy for those changes, their order of appearance doesn’t matter. Trees can be drawn and mutations assigned to them without regard to an evolutionary sequence of genotypes, since genotypes don’t matter.
At the 2:45 minute mark of the following video the mathematical roots of the junk DNA argument, that is still used by Darwinists, is traced through Haldane, Kimura, and Ohno's work, in the 1950's, 60's and 70's, in population genetics:

What Is The Genome? It's Not Junk! - Dr. Robert Carter - video - (Notes in video description)

A bit more detail on the history of the junk DNA argument, and how it was born out of evolutionary thought, is here:

Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists
Here is a Completely Different Way of Doing Science - Cornelius Hunter PhD. - April 2012
Excerpt: But how then could evolution proceed if mutations were just neutral? The idea was that neutral mutations would accrue until finally an earthquake, comet, volcano or some such would cause a major environmental shift which suddenly could make use of all those neutral mutations. Suddenly, those old mutations went from goat-to-hero, providing just the designs that were needed to cope with the new environmental challenge. It was another example of the incredible serendipity that evolutionists call upon.
Too good to be true? Not for evolutionists. The neutral theory became quite popular in the literature. The idea that mutations were not brimming with cool innovations but were mostly bad or at best neutral, for some, went from an anathema to orthodoxy. And the idea that those neutral mutations would later magically provide the needed innovations became another evolutionary just-so story, told with conviction as though it was a scientific finding.
Another problem with the theory of neutral molecular evolution is that it made even more obvious the awkward question of where these genes came from in the first place.

Thou Shalt Not Put Evolutionary Theory to a Test - Douglas Axe - July 18, 2012
Excerpt: "For example, McBride criticizes me for not mentioning genetic drift in my discussion of human origins, apparently without realizing that the result of Durrett and Schmidt rules drift out. Each and every specific genetic change needed to produce humans from apes would have to have conferred a significant selective advantage in order for humans to have appeared in the available time (i.e. the mutations cannot be 'neutral'). Any aspect of the transition that requires two or more mutations to act in combination in order to increase fitness would take way too long (>100 million years).
My challenge to McBride, and everyone else who believes the evolutionary story of human origins, is not to provide the list of mutations that did the trick, but rather a list of mutations that can do it. Otherwise they're in the position of insisting that something is a scientific fact without having the faintest idea how it even could be."
Doug Axe PhD.

Michael Behe on the theory of constructive neutral evolution - February 2012
Excerpt: I don’t mean to be unkind, but I think that the idea seems reasonable only to the extent that it is vague and undeveloped; when examined critically it quickly loses plausibility. The first thing to note about the paper is that it contains absolutely no calculations to support the feasibility of the model. This is inexcusable. - Michael Behe

Oxford University Admits Darwinism's Shaky Math Foundation - May 2011
Excerpt: However, mathematical population geneticists mainly deny that natural selection leads to optimization of any useful kind. This fifty-year old schism is intellectually damaging in itself, and has prevented improvements in our concept of what fitness is. - On a 2011 Job Description for a Mathematician, at Oxford, to 'fix' the persistent mathematical problems with neo-Darwinism within two years.

Population Genetics and Adam & Eve? - The answer you get depends on several unknown a-priori assumptions - Dr. Ann Gauger, Pt. 2 - podcast

The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology
Excerpt: If more than about three genes (nature unspecified) underpin a phenotype, the mathematics of population genetics, while qualitatively analyzable, requires too many unknown parameters to make quantitatively testable predictions [6]. The inadequacy of this approach is demonstrated by illustrations of the molecular pathways that generates traits [7]: the network underpinning something as simple as growth may have forty or fifty participating proteins whose production involves perhaps twice as many DNA sequences, if one includes enhancers, splice variants etc. Theoretical genetics simply cannot handle this level of complexity, let alone analyse the effects of mutation..

Macroevolution, microevolution and chemistry: the devil is in the details - Dr. V. J. Torley - February 27, 2013
Excerpt: Evolutionary biology has certainly been the subject of extensive mathematical theorizing. The overall name for this field is population genetics, or the study of allele frequency distribution and change under the influence of the four main evolutionary processes: natural selection, genetic drift, mutation and gene flow. Population genetics attempts to explain speciation within this framework.
However, at the present time, there is no mathematical model – not even a “toy model” – showing that Darwin’s theory of macroevolution can even work, much less work within the time available. Darwinist mathematicians themselves have admitted as much.,,,
We have seen that there’s currently no good theory that can serve as an adequate model for Darwinian macroevolution – even at a “holistic” level. As we saw, Professor Gregory Chaitin’s toy models don’t go down to the chemical level requested by Professor James Tour, but these models have failed to validate Darwin’s theory of evolution, or even show that it could work.
At this point, there is an alternative line that (Nick) Matzke might want to take. He could claim that macroevolution is ultimately explicable in terms of bottom-level laws and physical processes, but that unfortunately, scientists haven’t discovered what they are yet. From a theoretical perspective, reductionism would then be true after all, and the chemical explanation of macroevolution demanded by Professor Tour could be given. From a practical standpoint, however, it would be impossible for scientists to provide such an explanation within the foreseeable future.
If Matzke wishes to take this road, then he is tacitly admitting that scientists don’t yet know either the scientific laws (which are written in the language of mathematics) or the physical processes that ultimately explain and drive macroevolution. But if they don’t know either of these, then I would ask him: why should we believe that it actually occurs? After all, mathematics, scientific laws and observed processes are supposed to form the basis of all scientific explanation. If none of these provides support for Darwinian macroevolution, then why on earth should we accept it? Indeed, why does macroevolution belong in the province of science at all, if its scientific basis cannot be demonstrated?

Mathematician Alexander Tsiaras on Human Development: "It's a Mystery, It's Magic, It's Divinity" - March 2012
Excerpt: 'The magic of the mechanisms inside each genetic structure saying exactly where that nerve cell should go, the complexity of these, the mathematical models on how these things are indeed done, are beyond human comprehension. Even though I am a mathematician, I look at this with the marvel of how do these instruction sets not make these mistakes as they build what is us. It's a mystery, it's magic, it's divinity.'
Despite its failure in population genetics, there are a few 'mathematical' relationships for Darwinism that do seem to hold up:
Darwin vs. creationists is evolving debate By Terry Scambray - February 2013
Excerpt: ,,,Subsequently the tactic was to attack individuals who doubted Darwin by calling them "creationists" -- meaning "crackpots." As one historian writes, the Darwinists' attacks "have been in almost direct proportion to the shortcomings of the theory."

"The perception of evolution’s explanatory power is inversely proportional to the specificity of the discussion."
- Eric
DNA Degeneration: Top Population Geneticists agree neo-Darwinism is not supported by the data – John Sanford

Genetic Entropy - Dr. John Sanford - Evolution vs. Reality - video (Notes in description)

It is also extremely interesting to note, the principle of Genetic Entropy, a principle which stands in direct opposition of the primary claim of neo-Darwinian evolution, lends itself quite well to mathematical analysis by computer simulation:
Using Computer Simulation to Understand Mutation Accumulation Dynamics and Genetic Load:
Excerpt: We apply a biologically realistic forward-time population genetics program to study human mutation accumulation under a wide-range of circumstances.,, Our numerical simulations consistently show that deleterious mutations accumulate linearly across a large portion of the relevant parameter space.

Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory - 2008
Abstract: Evolutionary genetic theory has a series of apparent “fatal flaws” which are well known to population geneticists, but which have not been effectively communicated to other scientists or the public. These fatal flaws have been recognized by leaders in the field for many decades—based upon logic and mathematical formulations. However population geneticists have generally been very reluctant to openly acknowledge these theoretical problems, and a cloud of confusion has come to surround each issue.
Numerical simulation provides a definitive tool for empirically testing the reality of these fatal flaws and can resolve the confusion. The program Mendel’s Accountant (Mendel) was developed for this purpose, and it is the first biologically-realistic forward-time population genetics numerical simulation program. This new program is a powerful research and teaching tool. When any reasonable set of biological parameters are used, Mendel provides overwhelming empirical evidence that all of the “fatal flaws” inherent in evolutionary genetic theory are real. This leaves evolutionary genetic theory effectively falsified—with a degree of certainty which should satisfy any reasonable and open-minded person.

Calling all Darwinists, where is your best population genetics simulation? - September 12, 2013
Excerpt: So Darwinists, what is your software, and what are your results? I’d think if evolutionary theory is so scientific, it shouldn’t be the creationists making these simulations, but evolutionary biologists! So what is your software, what are your figures, and what are your parameters. And please don’t cite Nunney, who claims to have solved Haldane’s dilemma but refuses to let his software and assumptions and procedures be scrutinized in the public domain. At least Hey was more forthright, but unfortunately Hey’s software affirmed the results of Mendel’s accountant.

Using Numerical Simulation to Better Understand Fixation Rates, and Establishment of a New Principle - "Haldane's Ratchet" - Christopher L. Rupe and John C. Sanford - 2013
Excerpt: We then perform large-scale experiments to examine the feasibility of the ape-to-man scenario over a six million year period. We analyze neutral and beneficial fixations separately (realistic rates of deleterious mutations could not be studied in deep time due to extinction). Using realistic parameter settings we only observe a few hundred selection-induced beneficial fixations after 300,000 generations (6 million years). Even when using highly optimal parameter settings (i.e., favorable for fixation of beneficials), we only see a few thousand selection-induced fixations. This is significant because the ape-to-man scenario requires tens of millions of selective nucleotide substitutions in the human lineage.
Our empirically-determined rates of beneficial fixation are in general agreement with the fixation rate estimates derived by Haldane and ReMine using their mathematical analyses. We have therefore independently demonstrated that the findings of Haldane and ReMine are for the most part correct, and that the fundamental evolutionary problem historically known as "Haldane's Dilemma" is very real.
Previous analyses have focused exclusively on beneficial mutations. When deleterious mutations were included in our simulations, using a realistic ratio of beneficial to deleterious mutation rate, deleterious fixations vastly outnumbered beneficial fixations. Because of this, the net effect of mutation fixation should clearly create a ratchet-type mechanism which should cause continuous loss of information and decline in the size of the functional genome. We name this phenomenon "Haldane's Ratchet".
Here is a short sweet overview of Mendel's Accountant:
When macro-evolution takes a final, it gets an "F" - Using Numerical Simulation to Test the Validity of Neo-Darwinian Theory (Mendel's Accountant)
Excerpt of Conclusion: This (computer) program (Mendel’s Accountant) is a powerful teaching and research tool. It reveals that all of the traditional theoretical problems that have been raised about evolutionary genetic theory are in fact very real and are empirically verifiable in a scientifically rigorous manner. As a consequence, evolutionary genetic theory now has no theoretical support—it is an indefensible scientific model. Rigorous analysis of evolutionary genetic theory consistently indicates that the entire enterprise is actually bankrupt.
Whereas, neo-Darwinian evolution has no rigorous mathematical foundation with which we can rigorously analyze it in any computer simulation, in any supposed 'Evolutionary Algorithm':

Refutation of Evolutionary Algorithms
The equations of evolution - March 24, 2013
Excerpt: Darwin introduced no math whatsoever in his theory of origin of species. Darwin hated math (not by chance). Therefore one had to wait for few XX century mathematicians before seeing some math in evolutionary theory. It is specifically in population genetics that one finally encounters some applications of probability theory and statistics. They consist basically in two main equations: the Hardy-Weinberg law and the Price equation.,,,
To claim that the Hardy-Weinberg law explains evolution is as to say that in mechanics a principle of statics (immobility) explains dynamics (movement and the forces causing it).,,,
For a detailed critic of Price’s analysis by serious statisticians see here.,,,
“the data explain the data” [...] “for doing statistics the Price equation did not help” [...] “can’t think of anything remotely useful about the Price equation” [...] “some of us remember a feeling of doubt when first confronted with the Price equation, it may be a relief to hear John Maynard Smith [the famous evolutionist] say ‘I’m not going to tell you what Price’s theorem is, because I don’t actually understand it’ …”
The final point to take is that, also to be very generous, the Price equation does not explain at all how new systems arise in the species in the first place. It gets them as input systems already created by an unknown organizational cause. But the Darwinist claim is that evolution does create biological systems, and the Price equation, like the Hardy-Weinberg law, helps exactly zero to explain such creation.
So the initial question, how well (does) math support Darwinian evolution, (here's) the short answer: it doesn’t support evolution at all.
Accounting for Variations - Dr. David Berlinski: - video
"No human investigation can be called true science without passing through mathematical tests."
Leonardo Da Vinci
In what I consider to be the most egregious violation of logic by the Darwinian materialists is that they blatantly ignore foundational principles of science, Entropy and the Law of Conservation of Information, that severely contradicts their preconceived philosophical bias of materialism. These following videos and articles clearly point this 'omission' out:

Evolution Vs. Thermodynamics - Open System Refutation - Thomas Kindell - video

Thermodynamics & Information - Ian Juby - video

On Thermodynamics, Information and Design - kairosfocus

The ATP Synthase Enzyme - exquisite motor necessary for first life - video
Your Motor/Generators Are 100% Efficient - October 2011
Excerpt: ATP synthase astounds again. The molecular machine that generates almost all the ATP (molecular “energy pellets”) for all life was examined by Japanese scientists for its thermodynamic efficiency. By applying and measuring load on the top part that synthesizes ATP, they were able to determine that one cannot do better at getting work out of a motor,,, The article was edited by noted Harvard expert on the bacterial flagellum, Howard Berg.

Bio-Mechanics - Don't the Intricacy & Ubiquity of Molecular Machines Provide Evidence for Design? by Casey Luskin - Spring 2012
Excerpt:,, biomolecular machines have a major difference that distinguishes them from human technology: their energetic efficiency dwarfs our best accomplishments. One paper observes that molecular machines "are generally more efficient than their macroscale counterparts,"7 and another suggests that the efficiency of the bacterial flagellum "could be ~100%."8 Human engineers can only dream of creating such devices.

"there are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems."
John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 7 July 1980

Peer-Reviewed Articles in International Journal of Design & Nature - Casey Luskin - February, 2012
Excerpt: Truman further notes that "McIntosh has done us a major service by reminding us that energy processing in useful manners requires specialized machines."

Evolutionists still wrong on entropy - 2008
Excerpt: The spontaneous (unaided or undirected) tendency of matter is always towards greater disorder -- not towards greater order and complexity as evolution would teach. Just having enough energy from the Sun is not sufficient to overcome entropy. This tendency towards disorder, which exists in all matter, can be temporarily overcome only if there exists some energy converting and directing mechanism to direct, develop, and maintain order.
When a seed becomes a tree, for example, there is no violation to the law of entropy because the seed contains a directing genetic code and very highly complex biological mechanisms to overcome entropy so that a seed can grow into a fully developed tree.

Rob Sheldon on new origin of life theory: Testimony to power of self-promotion? - January 24, 2014
Excerpt: The problem, as physicists will only tell you behind a closed and locked door, is that life violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you throw some water and amino acids and sugar on the stove and simmer it for a few days, you might get great soup, but you surely will not get a single ounce of help writing your next research grant. The reason is that the soup uses all that heat and water and convection to find the highest entropy possible at the given energy. In the reductionist “ideal gas” model, this is a Gaussian distribution of velocities known as a Maxwellian, and it is about as boring as it gets.
- Rob Sheldon - PhD. Physics

"...the quantity of entropy generated locally cannot be negative irrespective of whether the system is isolated or not."
Arnold Sommerfel, Thermodynamics And Statistical Mechanics, p.155

“Is there a real connection between entropy in physics and the entropy of information? ….The equations of information theory and the second law are the same, suggesting that the idea of entropy is something fundamental…”
Siegfried, Dallas Morning News, 5/14/90, [Quotes Robert W. Lucky, Ex. Director of Research, AT&T, Bell Laboratories & John A. Wheeler, of Princeton & Univ. of TX, Austin]

“Bertalanffy (1968) called the relation between irreversible thermodynamics and information theory one of the most fundamental unsolved problems in biology.”
Charles J. Smith – Biosystems, Vol.1, p259.

“Gain in entropy always means loss of information, and nothing more.”
Gilbert Newton Lewis – preeminent Chemist of the first half of last century

"Klimontovich’s S-theorem, an analogue of Boltzmann’s entropy for open systems, explains why the further an open system gets from the equilibrium, the less entropy becomes. So entropy-wise, in open systems there is nothing wrong about the Second Law. S-theorem demonstrates that spontaneous emergence of regular structures in a continuum is possible.,,, The hard bit though is emergence of cybernetic control (which is assumed by self-organisation theories and which has not been observed anywhere yet). In contrast to the assumptions, observations suggest that between Regularity and Cybernetic Systems there is a vast Cut which cannot be crossed spontaneously. In practice, it can be crossed by intelligent integration and guidance of systems through a sequence of states towards better utility. No observations exist that would warrant a guess that apart from intelligence it can be done by anything else."
Eugene S – UD Blogger

"The laws of probability apply to open as well as closed systems."
Granville Sewell - Professor Of Mathematics - University Of Texas El Paso

How the Scientific "Consensus" on Evolution is Maintained - Granville Sewell - April, 2012
Excerpt: If you want to show that the spontaneous rearrangement of atoms into machines capable of mathematical computation and interplanetary travel does not violate the fundamental natural principle behind the second law, you cannot simply say, as Styer and Bunn and so many others do, sure, evolution is astronomically improbable, but the Earth is an open system, so there is no problem as long as something (anything, apparently!) is happening outside the Earth which, if reversed, would be even more improbable. You have to argue that what has happened on Earth is not really astronomically improbable, given what has entered (and exited) our open system. Why is such a simple and obvious point so controversial?

Other Types of Entropy - Granville Sewell - September 6, 2012
Excerpt: If you insist on limiting the second law to applications involving thermal entropy, and that the only entropy is thermal entropy, than Sal is right that the second law has little to say about the emergence of life on Earth. But it is not just the “creationists” who apply it much more generally, many violent opponents of ID (including Asimov, Dawkins, Styer and Bunn) agree that this emergence does represent a decrease in “entropy” in the more general sense,

How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained -- and How it Can be Challenged - Granville Sewell - September 3, 2013
Conclusion: the journal BIO-Complexity has just published my new article "Entropy and Evolution," which I believe contains the strongest and clearest presentation of my viewpoint to date. The first thought that will occur to many people who read it will be, how could this illogical compensation argument have gone unchallenged for so long in the scientific literature? Well, now you know how.

Granville Sewell Defends his Arguments on the Second Law of Thermodynamics - Casey Luskin - August 22, 2013
Excerpt: Sewell concludes "The 'compensation' counter-argument was produced by people who generalized the model equation for isolated systems, but forgot to generalize the equation for non-isolated systems." His generalized model would be as follows: "If an increase in order is extremely improbable when a system is closed, it is still extremely improbable when the system is open, unless something is entering which makes it not extremely improbable."
Is the second law of thermodynamics a valid argument to use against evolutionists?
Physicist Rob Sheldon offers some thoughts on Sal Cordova vs. Granville Sewell on 2nd Law Thermo - July 2012
Excerpt: The Equivalence: Boltzmann’s famous equation (and engraved on his tombstone) S = k ln W, merely is an exchange rate conversion. If W is lira, and S is dollars, then k ln() is the conversion of the one to the other, which is empirically determined. Boltzmann’s constant “k” is a semi-empirical conversion number that made Gibbs “stat mech” definition work with the earlier “thermo” definition of Lord Kelvin and co.
Despite this being something as simple as a conversion factor, you must realize how important it was to connect these two. When Einstein connected mass to energy with E = (c2) m, we can now talk about mass-energy conservation, atom bombs and baby universes, whereas before Einstein they were totally different quantities.
Likewise, by connecting the two things, thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, then the hard rules derived from thermo can now be applied to statistics of counting permutations.
This is where Granville derives the potency of his argument, since a living organism certainly shows unusual permutations of the atoms, and thus has stat mech entropy that via Boltzmann, must obey the 2nd law. If life violates this, then it must not be lawfully possible for evolution to happen (without an input of work or information.)
The one remaining problem, is how to calculate it precisely (how to calculate the entropy precisely).

note: (And because it is extremely difficult to calculate entropy precisely for living cells, this is exactly where Darwinists try to claim evolution does not violate the second law. Yet regardless of the games Darwinists play because of this lack of mathematical precision, for all intents and purposes as far as we can ascertain, for evolution to occur would indeed violate the 'iron clad' second law of thermodynamics!)

Organization=control needs information. Entropy is the inverse of organization, and then is lack of information. To increase the organization of a system we need to inject information inside it. This way we decrease its entropy. Without this injection the 2nd law tells us the system’s entropy increases. Who claims that the sun provides information (then organization) to systems by means of its energy confuses the two basic paradigms of systems theory, power and control. Solar energy provides power. It doesn’t provide control. Hence it cannot increase organization. When Dr. Sewell says that the sun doesn’t send us computers, cars, phones, he uses an intuitive illustration of such concept. - niwrad - UD blogger

The hole of the SLoT (Second Law Of Thermodynamics - niwrad - July 8, 2013
Excerpt: The bottom line is: improbable events related to organization in a system remain improbable independently from the fact that we consider the system closed or open. Unless evolutionists are able to prove that some external cause is really able to somehow reduce such improbabilities, by injecting CSI to create organization. So far evolutionists have not succeeded in such (a) task, their “compensation argument” is laughable. While IDers have a name for an organizational cause: intelligence.

The law that entropy always increases holds, I think, the supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with Maxwell’s equations — then so much the worse for Maxwell’s equations. If it is found to be contradicted by observation — well, these experimentalists do bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation.
Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World (1915), chapter 4

Can “ANYTHING” Happen in an Open System? - Granville Sewell PhD. Math
Excerpt: If we found evidence that DNA, auto parts, computer chips, and books entered through the Earth’s atmosphere at some time in the past, then perhaps the appearance of humans, cars, computers, and encyclopedias on a previously barren planet could be explained without postulating a violation of the second law here (it would have been violated somewhere else!).
Can Anything Happen In A Open System - Granville Sewell PhD. Math - video

The common sense law of physics - Granville Sewell - July 2010

Are You Looking for the Simplest and Clearest Argument for Intelligent Design? - Granville Sewell - video

Casey Luskin interviews Granville Sewell - audio

Evolution's Thermodynamic Failure - Granville Sewell
(Professor of Mathematics - Texas University - El Paso)

Prof. Granville Sewell on Evolution: In The Beginning and Other Essays on Intelligent Design - video

Granville Sewell - Mathematics Dept. University of Texas El Paso (Papers and Videos)
Why Tornados Running Backward do not Violate the Second Law - Granville Sewell - May 2012 - article with video
Excerpt: So, how does the spontaneous rearrangement of matter on a rocky, barren, planet into human brains and spaceships and jet airplanes and nuclear power plants and libraries full of science texts and novels, and supercomputers running partial differential equation solving software , represent a less obvious or less spectacular violation of the second law—or at least of the fundamental natural principle behind this law—than tornados turning rubble into houses and cars? Can anyone even imagine a more spectacular violation?

Information and entropy – top-down or bottom-up development in living systems? A.C. McINTOSH
Excerpt: This paper highlights the distinctive and non-material nature of information and its relationship with matter, energy and natural forces. It is proposed in conclusion that it is the non-material information (transcendent to the matter and energy) that is actually itself constraining the local thermodynamics to be in ordered disequilibrium and with specified raised free energy levels necessary for the molecular and cellular machinery to operate.

Peer-Reviewed Paper Investigating Origin of Information Endorses Irreducible Complexity and Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - July 2010
Excerpt: It has often been asserted that the logical entropy of a non-isolated system could reduce, and thereby new information could occur at the expense of increasing entropy elsewhere, and without the involvement of intelligence. In this paper, we have sought to refute this claim on the basis that this is not a sufficient condition to achieve a rise in local order. One always needs a machine in place to make use of an influx of new energy and a new machine inevitably involves the systematic raising of free energies for such machines to work. Intelligence is a pre-requisite.

Functional Information and Entropy in living systems - Andy McIntosh
Excerpt: There has to be previously written information or order (often termed “teleonomy”) for passive, non-living chemicals to respond and become active. Thus the following summary statement applies to all known systems: Energy + Information equals Locally reduced entropy (Increase of order) (or teleonomy) with the corollary: Matter and Energy alone does not equal a Decrease in Entropy

Walter L. Bradley, Information, Entropy, and the Origin of Life:
Excerpt: He clarifies the distinction between configurational and thermal entropy, and shows why materialistic theories of chemical evolution have not explained the configurational entropy present in living systems, a feature of living systems that Bradley takes to be strong evidence of intelligent design.

“Inanimate nature … cannot scheme to locally and temporarily circumvent the 2nd Law.” - David Abel
Excerpt: Inanimate nature cannot pursue the goal of homeostasis; it cannot scheme to locally and temporarily circumvent the 2nd Law. This deadlock affects all naturalistic models involving hypercycles, composomes and chemotons. It precludes all spontaneous geochemical, hydrothermal, eutectic, and photochemical scenarios. It affects the Lipid, Peptide and Zinc World models. It pertains to Co-evolution and all other code-origin models.

"The point is that in a non-isolated system there exists a possibility for formation of ordered, low entropy structures at sufficiently low temperatures. This ordering principle is responsible for the appearance of ordered structures such as crystal as well as for the phenomena of phase transition. Unfortunately this principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the coordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small. The idea of spontaneous genesis of life in its present form is therefore highly improbable, even on the scale of the billions of years during which prebiotic evolution occurred"
Prigogine, Ilya Thermodynamics of Evolution, Physics Today vol. 24 - 1972

The ID argument from thermodynamics:
Excerpt: "energy cannot create CSI (Complex Specified Information)."
Mathematical refutation of the open system entropy argument - by Kairosfocus

Conservation of Information In Search - William Dembski and Robert Marks - Sept. 2009
The Capabilities of Chaos and Complexity: David L. Abel -
Null Hypothesis For Information Generation - 2009
To focus the scientific community’s attention on its own tendencies toward overzealous metaphysical imagination bordering on “wish-fulfillment,” we propose the following readily falsifiable null hypothesis, and invite rigorous experimental attempts to falsify it: "Physicodynamics cannot spontaneously traverse The Cybernetic Cut:
The average number of cells in the human body is between 75 and 100 trillion cells. 300 million cells in the human body die and are replaced (most of them) every minute. If all the DNA was removed from a single cell in a person's body and laid end to end, it would be six feet long. If the DNA was removed from all of the cells in a person's body and laid end to end, it would stretch from Earth to the sun and back 450 times, or about 135 billion kilometers. The human genome, according to Bill Gates the founder of Microsoft, far, far surpasses, in complexity, any computer program ever written by man. The data compression (multiple meanings) of some stretches of human DNA is estimated to be up to 12 codes thick! (Trifonov, 1989) No line of computer code ever written by man approaches that level of data compression (poly-functional complexity). There are about three-billion letters of code on the six feet of DNA curled up in each human cell. The amount of information in human DNA is roughly equivalent to 12 sets of The Encyclopaedia Britannica—an incredible 384 volumes worth of detailed information that would fill 48 feet of library shelves! If you were to read the code aloud, at a rate of three letters per second for twenty-four hours per day (about one-hundred-million letters a year), it would take you over thirty years to read it. Looking at all the digital and analog memory devices in the world, researchers calculated in 2011 that humankind is able to store at least 295 exabytes of information (that’s a number with 20 zeroes in it), but that is still less than one percent of the information that is stored in all the DNA molecules of a single human being. The capacity of a DNA molecule to store information is so efficient that all the information needed to specify an organism as complex as man weighs less than a few thousand-millionths of a gram. The information in the DNA of all the different species of organisms which have ever existed on earth (a number estimated to be one billion) could easily fit into a teaspoon with plenty of room left over for every book ever written on the face of the earth. For comparison sake, if mere man were to try to 'quantum teleport' just one human body (change a physical human body into "pure information" and then 'teleport' it to another physical location) it would take at least 10^32 bits just to decode the teleportation event, or a cube of CD-ROM disks 1000 kilometers on 1 side, and would take over one hundred million centuries to transmit all that information for just one human body even with the best optical fibers conceivable!
(A fun talk on teleportation - Professor Samuel Braunstein -

New Breakthrough in (Quantum) Teleportation - video
Quote from video:
"There are 10^28 atoms in the human body.,, The amount of data contained in the whole human,, is 3.02 x 10^32 gigabytes of information. Using a high bandwidth transfer that data would take about 4.5 x 10^18 years to teleport 1 time. That is 350,000 times the age of the universe."
for comparison sake:
"The theoretical (information) density of DNA is you could store the total world information, which is 1.8 zetabytes, at least in 2011, in about 4 grams of DNA." (a zettabyte is one billion trillion or 10^21 bytes of digital data)
Sriram Kosuri PhD. - Wyss Institute
the entire digital output of the entire world is only 10^21 bytes or 10^22 bits and Werner Gitt observes that the storage capacity of “1 cubic cm of DNA is 10^21 bits. (DNA – deoxyribonucleaic acid.)”
"To the skeptic, the proposition that the genetic programmes of higher organisms, consisting of something close to a thousand million bits of information, equivalent to the sequence of letters in a small library of 1,000 volumes, containing in encoded form countless thousands of intricate algorithms controlling, specifying, and ordering the growth and development of billions and billions of cells into the form of a complex organism, were composed by a purely random process is simply an affront to reason. But to the Darwinist, the idea is accepted without a ripple of doubt - the paradigm takes precedence!"
Michael Denton

Psalm 139: 14-15
"I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;,,, When I was woven together in the depths of the earth, your eyes saw my unformed body."
Further evidence for the inherent complexity of the DNA is found in a major study. In June 2007, a international team of scientists, named ENCODE, published a study which indicates the genome contains very little unused sequences and is, in fact, a complex interwoven network. This “complex interwoven network”, throughout the entire DNA code, makes the human genome severely "poly-constrained" to random mutations (Sanford; Genetic Entropy; page 141). Here are a few articles:
A 'scientific revolution' is taking place, as researchers explore the genomic jungle:
"The science of life is undergoing changes so jolting that even its top researchers are feeling something akin to shell-shock. Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA "letters" folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined."

BETHESDA, Md., Wed., June 13, 2007 -"An international research consortium (ENCODE) today published a set of papers that promise to reshape our understanding of how the human genome functions. The findings challenge the traditional view of our genetic blueprint as a tidy collection of independent genes, pointing instead to a complex network in which genes, along with regulatory elements and other types of DNA sequences that do not code for proteins, interact in overlapping ways not yet fully understood."

Encyclopedia Of DNA: New Findings Challenge Established Views On Human Genome:
The ENCODE consortium's major findings include the discovery that the majority of DNA in the human genome is transcribed into functional molecules, called RNA, and that these transcripts extensively overlap one another. This broad pattern of transcription challenges the long-standing view that the human genome consists of a relatively small set of discrete genes, along with a vast amount of so-called junk DNA that is not biologically active. The new data indicate the genome contains very little unused sequences and, in fact, is a complex, interwoven network. In this network, genes are just one of many types of DNA sequences that have a functional impact.

Concluding statement of the ENCODE study:
"we have also encountered a remarkable excess of experimentally identified functional elements lacking evolutionary constraint, and these cannot be dismissed for technical reasons. This is perhaps the biggest surprise of the pilot phase of the ENCODE Project, and suggests that we take a more 'neutral' view of many of the functions conferred by the genome."

Astonishing DNA complexity demolishes neo-Darwinism - Alex Williams
Excerpt: Not only has the ENCODE project elevated UTRs out of the ‘junk’ category, but it now appears that they are far more active than the translated regions (the genes), as measured by the number of DNA bases appearing in RNA transcripts. Genic regions are transcribed on average in five different overlapping and interleaved ways, while UTRs are transcribed on average in seven different overlapping and interleaved ways. Since there are about 33 times as many bases in UTRs than in genic regions, that makes the ‘junk’ about 50 times more active than the genes.

Ten years on, still much to be learned from human genome map - April 12, 2013
Excerpt:,,,"What we've learned over the past 10 years is that we're still far from really understanding the complexity of the human genome," said Eric Schadt, chairman of genetics and genomic sciences at Mount Sinai Icahn School of Medicine in New York City. "Human disease is way more complicated than the old view that single hits to single genes cause diseases.
"In most forms of diseases, it's whole constellations of genes operating in networks," Schadt explained. "That becomes a much harder problem. How do you target networks with a single drug?,, (Or vice versa, how do single mutations to single genes incrementally build "constellations of genes operating in networks" in the first place?),,,
"We keep learning how much we really don't know and how much further we need to go," he added. "That's the big story.",,,
What's more, about 10 percent of the human genome still hasn't been sequenced and can't be sequenced by existing technology, Green added. "There are parts of the genome we didn't know existed back when the genome was completed," he said.,,,
Since evolution was forced, by the established proof of Mendelian genetics, to no longer view the whole organism as to what natural selection works upon, but to view the whole organism as a multiple independent collection of genes which can be selected or discarded as natural selection sees fit, this 'complex interwoven network' finding is absolutely devastating for the population genetics scenario of evolution (modern neo-Darwinian synthesis) developed by Haldane, Fisher and Wright, since genes are now shown not to be the independent entities evolutionists required them to be (page 52 and 53: Genetic Entropy: Sanford 2005).
The fate of competing beneficial mutations in an asexual population (Philip J. Gerrish & Richard E. Lenski)
"As shown by Manning and Thompson (1984) and by Peck (1994), the fate of a beneficial mutation is determined as much by the selective disadvantage of any deleterious mutations with which it is linked as by its own selective advantage.",%20Genetica,%20Gerrish%20&%20Lenski.pdf

"There has been increasing recognition that genes deal with information processing. They have been referred to as "subroutines within a much larger operating system"."
Kirk Durston
John Sanford, a leading expert in Genetics, comments on some of the stunning poly-functional complexity found in the genome:

Poly-Functional Complexity equals Poly-Constrained Complexity

DNA - Evolution Vs. Polyfuctionality - video

As well as DNA being 'poly-functional', proteins in humans are also found to be extremely 'poly-functional';
The Complexity of Gene Expression, Protein Interaction, and Cell Differentiation - Jill Adams, Ph.D. - 2008
Excerpt: it seems that a single protein can have dozens, if not hundreds, of different interactions,,, In a commentary that accompanied Stumpf's article, Luis Nunes Amaral (2008) wrote, "These numbers provide a sobering view of where we stand in our cataloging of the human interactome. At present, we have identified less than 0.3% of all estimated interactions among human proteins. We are indeed at the dawn of systems biology."
This is a clear, but simple, illustration of the principle behind poly-functional constraint;
K´necting The Dots: Modeling Functional Integration In Biological Systems
Excerpt: “If an engineer modifies the length of the piston rods in an internal combustion engine, but does not modify the crankshaft accordingly, the engine won’t start. Similarly, processes of development are so tightly integrated temporally and spatially that one change early in development will require a host of other coordinated changes in separate but functionally interrelated developmental processes downstream”

Insight into cells could lead to new approach to medicines
Excerpt: Scientists expected to find simple links between individual proteins but were surprised to find that proteins were inter-connected in a complex web. Dr Victor Neduva, of the University of Edinburgh, who took part in the study, said: "Our studies have revealed an intricate network of proteins within cells that is much more complex than we previously thought.

New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin - June 2011
Excerpt: If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?
Amazingly, many leading evolutionists (Ayala in 2010; Francis Collins in 2010) still insist that most of the genome, which does not directly code for proteins, is useless 'Junk DNA'.

Francis Collins, Darwin of the Gaps, and the Fallacy Of Junk DNA - Wells, Meyer, Sternberg - video
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, “orphaned” genes, “junk” DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection." – Ken Miller
This irrational stance by Darwinists has severely hindered scientific progress:
On the roles of repetitive DNA elements in the context of a unified genomic-epigenetic system. - Richard Sternberg
Excerpt: It is argued throughout that a new conceptual framework is needed for understanding the roles of repetitive DNA in genomic/epigenetic systems, and that neo-Darwinian “narratives” have been the primary obstacle to elucidating the effects of these enigmatic components of chromosomes.
As well it is now known that many of the hereditary diseases that afflict humans arise from the large 'Junk DNA' regions:
International HoloGenomics Society - "Junk DNA Diseases"
Excerpt: A primary goal of IHGS is to elevate awareness of the fact that "some, if not all" hereditary diseases do not stop at the boundaries of "genes"
Excerpt: "elaborated in more detail in my “Obituary of Junk DNA “
uncounted millions of people died miserable deaths while scientists were looking for the “gene” causing their illnesses – and were not even supposed to look anywhere but under the lamp illuminating only 1.3% of the genome (the genes)."
Some materialists have tried to get around the failed prediction of Junk DNA by saying evolution never really predicted Junk DNA. This following site list several studies and quotes by leading evolutionists that expose their falsehood in denying the functionless Junk DNA predictions that were made by leading evolutionists:

Functionless Junk DNA Predictions By Leading Evolutionists

This following site tells of a fairly embarrassing exchange for three Darwinian professors who insisted Intron sequences in DNA were junk yet were contradicted by the evidence:

Introns - The Fact-Free “Science” of Matheson, Hunt and Moran: Ridicule Instead of Reason, Authority Instead of Evidence - Jonathan Wells - June 2010

This following article shows that at least one molecular biologist, who believes in Darwinian evolution, seems to sense the obvious problem of calling the vast majority of our genome 'Junk';
Non-coding RNAs and eukaryotic evolution - a personal view - John Mattick - May 2010
Excerpt: "But you certainly need to have a more complex regulatory framework to get to a more complex organism, and the astounding thing is that the only thing that does scale with complexity - because the number of genes does not - is the extent of the non-protein-coding genome."
The preceding 'personal opinion', of functionality for Junk DNA, is of course a rare exception for a Darwinian evolutionist to state publicly. On the other hand, the Intelligent Design theory has, of course, predicted functional 'Junk DNA' all along:
“Indeed, if it were true that the genomes of higher organisms contained vast quantities of junk the whole argument of this book would collapse. Teleology would be entirely discredited. On any teleological model of evolution, most, perhaps all the DNA in the genomes of higher organisms should have some function.”
From Michael Denton’s 1998 book Nature’s Destiny (pages 289-290)
Junk DNA - Another Failed Prediction Of Evolution - video

All Proposed Elements Of Junk DNA Are Now Found To Show Signs Of Containing High Level Function - List Of Over 100 Studies

The following article highlights what I feel is perhaps the most crushing objection that can be urged against the 'Junk DNA' argument:
Arriving At Intelligence Through The Corridors Of Reason (Part II) - April 2010
Excerpt: ,,, since junk DNA would put an unnecessary energetic burden on cells during the process of replication, it stands to reason that it would more likely be eliminated through selective pressures.
This study backs up the preceding observation:
Experimental Evolution of Gene Duplicates in a Bacterial Plasmid Model
Excerpt: In a striking contradiction to our model, no such conditions were found. The fitness cost of carrying both plasmids increased dramatically as antibiotic levels were raised, and either the wild-type plasmid was lost or the cells did not grow. This study highlights the importance of the cost of duplicate genes and the quantitative nature of the tradeoff in the evolution of gene duplication through functional divergence.
This following study, which discovered that there actually is a "splicing code" on top of the genetic code, should have, by all reasonable accounts just because of the sheer complexity of finding one code on top of another code, stopped neo-Darwinian evolution dead in its tracks:
Nature Reports Discovery of “Second Genetic Code” But Misses Intelligent Design Implications - May 2010
Excerpt: Rebutting those who claim that much of our genome is useless, the article reports that "95% of the human genome is alternatively spliced, and that changes in this process accompany many diseases." ,,,, the complexity of this "splicing code" is mind-boggling:,,, A summary of this article also titled “Breaking the Second Genetic Code” in the print edition of Nature summarized this research thusly: “At face value, it all sounds simple: DNA makes RNA, which then makes protein. But the reality is much more complex.,,, So what we’re finding in biology are:

# “beautiful” genetic codes that use a biochemical language;
# Deeper layers of codes within codes showing an “expanding realm of complexity”;
# Information processing systems that are far more complex than previously thought (and we already knew they were complex), including “the appearance of features deeper into introns than previously appreciated”

Researchers Crack 'Splicing Code,' Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity - May 2010
Excerpt: "Understanding a complex biological system is like understanding a complex electronic circuit. Our team 'reverse-engineered' the splicing code using large-scale experimental data generated by the group,"

Breakthrough: Second Genetic Code Revealed - May 2010
Excerpt: The paper is a triumph of information science that sounds reminiscent of the days of the World War II codebreakers. Their methods included algebra, geometry, probability theory, vector calculus, information theory, code optimization, and other advanced methods. One thing they had no need of was evolutionary theory,,,

Deciphering the splicing code - May 2010
Excerpt: Here we describe the assembly of a ‘splicing code’, which uses combinations of hundreds of RNA features to predict tissue-dependent changes in alternative splicing for thousands of exons. The code determines new classes of splicing patterns, identifies distinct regulatory programs in different tissues, and identifies mutation-verified regulatory sequences.,,,
Deriving the code for alternative splicing - Dr Yoseph Barash - video

This following paper, which I've listed previously, highlights the regulatory role that the 'second code' has over the primary protein coding DNA code:
Researchers Crack ‘Splicing Code,’ Solve a Mystery Underlying Biological Complexity
Excerpt: “For example, three neurexin genes can generate over 3,000 genetic messages that help control the wiring of the brain,” says Frey. “Previously, researchers couldn’t predict how the genetic messages would be rearranged, or spliced, within a living cell,” Frey said. “The splicing code that we discovered has been successfully used to predict how thousands of genetic messages are rearranged differently in many different tissues.
The preceding study put a 'unique signature of individuality' upon the human genome that is set completely apart from the chimpanzee genome since functional 'junk intron sequences' were used in deciphering the 'second genetic code' (the splicing code),,,,
Canadian Team Develops Alternative Splicing Code from Mouse Tissue Data
Excerpt: “Our method takes as an input a collection of exons and surrounding intron sequences and data profiling how those exons are spliced in different tissues,” Frey and his co-authors wrote. “The method assembles a code that can predict how a transcript will be spliced in different tissues.”
,,, And yet these 'junk intron sequences', that were used to decipher the splicing code of different tissue types in an organism, are found to be 'exceptionally different' between chimpanzees and Humans:
Modern origin of numerous alternatively spliced human introns from tandem arrays – 2006
Excerpt: A comparison with orthologous regions in mouse and chimpanzee suggests a young age for the human introns with the most-similar boundaries. Finally, we show that these human introns are alternatively spliced with exceptionally high frequency.

Characterization and potential functional significance of human-chimpanzee large INDEL variation - October 2011
Excerpt:,,, we categorized human-chimpanzee INDEL (Insertion, Deletion) variation mapping in or around genes and determined whether this variation is significantly correlated with previously determined differences in gene expression.
Results: Extensive, large INDEL (Insertion, Deletion) variation exists between the human and chimpanzee genomes. This variation is primarily attributable to retrotransposon insertions within the human lineage. There is a significant correlation between differences in gene expression and large human-chimpanzee INDEL variation mapping in genes or in proximity to them.
Jonathan Wells comments on the Darwinian Logic, within the preceding paper, that attributed the large scale variation that was found to Darwinian processes:
Darwinian Logic: The Latest on Chimp and Human DNA – Jonathan Wells - October 2011
Excerpt: Protein-coding regions of DNA in chimps and humans are remarkably similar -- 98%, by many estimates -- and this similarity has been used as evidence that the two species are descended from a common ancestor. Yet chimps and humans are very different anatomically and behaviorally, and even thirty years ago some biologists were speculating that those differences might be due to non-protein-coding regions, which make up about 98% of chimp and human DNA. (In other words, the 98% similarity refers to only 2% of the genome.) Now a research team headed by John F. McDonald at Georgia Tech has published evidence that large segments of non-protein-coding DNA differ significantly between chimps and humans,,,, If the striking similarities in protein-coding DNA point to the common ancestry of chimps and humans, why don’t dissimilarities in the much more abundant non-protein-coding DNA point to their separate origins?
This following, more recent, paper found that Alternative Splicing patterns appear to be 'species specific':
,,,Alternative splicing,,, may contribute to species differences - December 21, 2012
Excerpt: After analyzing vast amounts of genetic data, the researchers found that the same genes are expressed in the same tissue types, such as liver or heart, across mammalian species. However, alternative splicing patterns—which determine the segments of those genes included or excluded—vary from species to species.,,,
The results from the alternative splicing pattern comparison were very different. Instead of clustering by tissue, the patterns clustered mostly by species. "Different tissues from the cow look more like the other cow tissues, in terms of splicing, than they do like the corresponding tissue in mouse or rat or rhesus," Burge says. Because splicing patterns are more specific to each species, it appears that splicing may contribute preferentially to differences between those species, Burge says,,,
Excerpt of Abstract: To assess tissue-specific transcriptome variation across mammals, we sequenced complementary DNA from nine tissues from four mammals and one bird in biological triplicate, at unprecedented depth. We find that while tissue-specific gene expression programs are largely conserved, alternative splicing is well conserved in only a subset of tissues and is frequently lineage-specific. Thousands of previously unknown, lineage-specific, and conserved alternative exons were identified;

Evolution by Splicing - Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. - Ruth Williams - December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,
This finding is far more devastating than the authors let on in the preceding paper. Finding very different regulatory 'alternative splicing codes/schemes' to be regulating 'alternative splicing events' of different species is very devastating because of neo-Darwinism's inability to account for any changes of any particular part of a code once it is in place. This applies to either drastic of minor changes of any particular code. This constraint applies to Alternative Splicing codes, Genetic codes, Histone codes, Acetylation codes, or any other code found, or that may be found, in life,,, Of note:
"In the last ten years, at least 20 different natural information codes were discovered in life, each operating to arbitrary conventions (not determined by law or physicality). Examples include protein address codes [Ber08B], acetylation codes [Kni06], RNA codes [Fai07], metabolic codes [Bru07], cytoskeleton codes [Gim08], histone codes [Jen01], and alternative splicing codes [Bar10]. Donald E. Johnson – Programming of Life – pg.51 - 2010
,,,The reason why finding drastically different alternative splicing codes/schemes between closely related species is devastating to neo-Darwinian (bottom up) evolution is partly seen by understanding 'Shannon Channel Capacity':
“Because of Shannon channel capacity that previous (first) codon alphabet had to be at least as complex as the current codon alphabet (DNA code), otherwise transferring the information from the simpler alphabet into the current alphabet would have been mathematically impossible”
Donald E. Johnson – Bioinformatics: The Information in Life
Shannon Information - Channel Capacity - Perry Marshall - video

But the primary reason why this is so devastating to neo-Darwinian (bottom up) evolution is best understood by taking a look at what Richard Dawkins has said about what would happen if one were to 'randomly' change part of the genetic code once it is in place:
Venter vs. Dawkins on the Tree of Life - and Another Dawkins Whopper - March 2011
Excerpt:,,, But first, let's look at the reason Dawkins gives for why the code must be universal:
"The reason is interesting. Any mutation in the genetic code itself (as opposed to mutations in the genes that it encodes) would have an instantly catastrophic effect, not just in one place but throughout the whole organism. If any word in the 64-word dictionary changed its meaning, so that it came to specify a different amino acid, just about every protein in the body would instantaneously change, probably in many places along its length. Unlike an ordinary mutation...this would spell disaster." (2009, p. 409-10)
OK. Keep Dawkins' claim of universality in mind, along with his argument for why the code must be universal, and then go here (linked site listing 23 variants of the genetic code).
Simple counting question: does "one or two" equal 23? That's the number of known variant genetic codes compiled by the National Center for Biotechnology Information. By any measure, Dawkins is off by an order of magnitude, times a factor of two
The bottom line is that if any regulatory code, such as the alternative splicing code, is ‘randomly changed’ in part, it throws the entire code out of whack and will be ‘instantly catastrophic’, to use Richard Dawkins most appropriate term, thus rendering gradual change to the code impossible. The entire code must be implemented ‘top down’ when the species is created.!

This following paper highlights the fact that gene regulation is more complex than was expected from the Darwinian framework:
Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex - Oct. 17, 2013
Excerpt: "We thought that we knew how to identify patterns of mRNA expression level differences between humans and chimpanzees that would be good candidates to be of functional importance," said Yoav Gilad, PhD, Professor of Human Genetics at the University of Chicago. "Now we see that even such mRNA patterns are not translated to the protein level. Which means that it is unlikely that they can affect a functional phenotypic difference.",,,
Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels. Many of these differences were thought to indicate areas of evolutionary divergence, thus pointing to genes important for human-specific traits.
To test this,, their team,, used high-resolution mass spectrometry to compare the expression levels of thousands of proteins with corresponding mRNA expression data in human and chimpanzee cell lines.
The team found 815 genes with differing mRNA expression levels but only 571 genes that differed in protein expression. In total, they identified an estimated 266 genes with mRNA differences that did not lead to changes in protein levels. They found similar results in rhesus macaque cell lines when compared to both chimpanzees and humans, confirming the trend.
"Some of these patterns of mRNA regulation have previously been thought of as evidence of natural selection for important genes in humans, but this can no longer be assumed," Gilad said.
The study raises questions over why mRNA expression levels differ between species if they do not necessarily cause protein differences.,,,
For now, research that uses mRNA expression levels as a measure of the functional importance of a gene requires reassessment, and not just in studies on evolution.,,,
Here is a article that gives us a glimpse as to how precise gene regulation is:
Regulating the Regulators: A Single Arginine Insertion in the Glucocorticoid Receptor Changes Protein Expression - Cornelius Hunter - Oct. 19, 2013
Excerpt: The editing machinery that inserts the single arginine amino acid is incredibly complicated. Under evolution we would have to believe that random mutations just happened to construct the fantastic editing machinery, a feat for which there is no explanation.
But evolution would have to repeat these heroics a large number of times to search through the astronomical number of different edits that are possible. How many amino acids should be edited? Should they be deleted or added? Which amino acids should be used? On which gene transcripts should the editing be performed? And where in the transcript should the edit be made?
But what is regulating the regulators?
The Unbearable Wholeness of Beings - Stephen L. Talbott - 2012
Excerpt: “When regulators are in turn regulated, what do we mean by “regulate” — and where within the web of regulation can we single out a master controller capable of dictating cellular fates? And if we can’t, what are reputable scientists doing when they claim to have identified such a controller, or, rather, various such controllers? If they really mean something like “influencers,” then that’s fine. But influence is not about mechanism and control; the things at issue just don’t have controlling powers. What we see, rather, is a continual mutual adaptation, interaction, and coordination that occurs from above. What we see, that is — once we start following out all the interactions at a molecular level — is not some mechanism dictating the fate or controlling an activity of the organism, but simply an organism-wide coherence — a living, metamorphosing form of activity — within which the more or less distinct partial activities find their proper place. The misrepresentation of this organic coherence in favor of supposed controlling mechanisms is not an innocent inattention to language; it’s a fundamental misrepresentation of reality at the central point where we are challenged to understand the character of living things.”
In other words, it is impossible in principle, contrary to what the central dogma of Darwinism may maintain, for an organism or cell to be regulated or controlled solely in a ‘bottom up’ fashion. Empirical evidence is finally catching up to this obvious point as Denis Nobel has recently noted:
“The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator”
- Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences
Of related note to spliceosomes, the molecular machines that remove introns from gene sequences:
Minor Spliceosomes as Real Time Sensors In Gene Regulation - Cornelius Hunter - August 24, 2013
Excerpt: In fact spliceosomes are incredibly complicated and perform sophisticated functions.,,,
not only are separate and independent structures and mechanisms simultaneously required for successful splicing, and not only are those structures and mechanisms incredibly complex, but the design space is highly nonlinear and discontinuous. This is yet another conundrum for evolution, the theory that calls for slow gradual change.
This following paper is brutally honest as to what ignoring 'Junk introns' means for the future of molecular "Darwinian" biology:
Matheson's Intron Fairy Tale - Richard Sternberg - June 2010
Excerpt: The failure to recognize the importance of introns "may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology." --John Mattick, Molecular biologist, University of Queensland, quoted in Scientific American,,, So let's do the math. At least ninety percent of gene transcripts undergo alternative splicing, and there are at least 190,000 introns in the human genome. That means we have at least 0.90 x 190,000 = 171,000 introns that participate in the alternative-splicing pathway(s) available to a cell.

How 'Junk DNA' Can Control Cell Development - Aug. 2, 2013
Excerpt: Researchers from the Gene and Stem Cell Therapy Program at Sydney's Centenary Institute have confirmed that, far from being "junk," the 97 per cent of human DNA that does not encode instructions for making proteins can play a significant role in controlling cell development.,,
The researchers reached their conclusions through studying introns -- non-coding sequences which are located inside genes.,,
The following paper from Nature readily admits that the Junk DNA paradigm is 'exploded':
Human Genome “Infinitely More Complex” Than Expected - April 2010
Excerpt: Hayden acknowledged that the “junk DNA” paradigm has been blown to smithereens. “Just one decade of post-genome biology has exploded that view,” she said,,,, Network theory is now a new paradigm that has replaced the one-way linear diagram of gene to RNA to protein. That used to be called the “Central Dogma” of genetics. Now, everything is seen to be dynamic, with promoters and blockers and interactomes, feedback loops, feed-forward processes, and “bafflingly complex signal-transduction pathways.”
Contrary to Darwinian expectations for 'simplicity' at the basis of life, the complexity being uncovered in genomes keeps increasing dramatically as our resolution increases:
Most Detailed Annotation of Fruit-Fly Genome Points Way to Understanding All Organisms’ Genomes – December 2010
Excerpt: “We also found an order-of-magnitude increase in the ways that genes are spliced and edited to produce alternate forms of known proteins, thus significantly increasing the complexity of the proteome.”,,, Despite the scrutiny to which the Drosophila genome has been subjected, the researchers found new or altered exons or splice forms in almost three-quarters of Drosophila’s previously annotated genes,,,
The following paper elaborates part of the 'network' that the previously mentioned p53 is interconnected with:
'Linc-ing' a noncoding RNA to a central cellular pathway - August 2010
Excerpt: This current work demonstrates that several dozen lincRNAs are targeted directly by p53,
This following site has a video and graph explaining the large scale regulatory role that has been found for RNA elements generated from 'Junk DNA' segments of the genome for p53:

A Large Intergenic Noncoding RNA Induced by p53 Mediates Global Gene Repression in the p53 Response - with Graph and Video
Researchers reveal an RNA modification influences thousands of genes - May 17, 2012
Excerpt: "This finding rewrites fundamental concepts of the composition of mRNA because, for 50 years, no one thought mRNA contained internal modifications that control function," says the study's senior investigator, Dr. Samie R. Jaffrey, an associate professor of pharmacology at Weill Cornell Medical College.
"We know that DNA and proteins are routinely modified by chemical switches that have profound effects on their function in both health and disease. But biologists believed mRNA was simply an intermediate between DNA and protein," he says. "Now we know mRNA is much more complex,
Most die-hard materialists/atheists, I've debated for several years over the internet, steadfastly imagine you can get such staggering levels of interwoven complexity/information in DNA, in RNA, in proteins, and indeed in all of life, from some dead process based on blind chance. For men to imagine that blind chance, filtered by natural selection (differential death), has the inherently vast wisdom to create such stunning interrelated complexity, that far, far, outclasses what humans have ever done in any of their machines, is even more misguided than some pagan culture worshiping a dead stone statue as their god and creator.

Besides Junk DNA, I would also like to point out that through the years many materialists have always made many false predictions in the face of unknown facts. This following site has a excellent, and fairly comprehensive, list of the consistent failed predictions of Darwinism.

Darwin’s Predictions - Cornelius Hunter

Here is a audio interview and article with Dr. Hunter, summarizing Darwinism's refusal to submit to falsification as all other robust theories of science do:

Darwin's Predictions With Cornelius Hunter - audio podcast part 1

The Religion and Failed Predictions of Evolutionists - Cornelius Hunter - audio podcast part 2

Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine - Cornelius Hunter - December 2010

Among the most blatant failed predictions of materialists is this one. For many years materialists predicted much of human anatomy was vestigial (useless and leftover evolutionary baggage). Yet once again, they were proven completely wrong in this prediction. The concept of vestigial organs was once considered strong evidence of evolution for about 100 years starting in the mid 1800′s. The same flawed Darwinian paradigm later led to the concept of “junk DNA.”
“There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigial structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities.”
-evidence submitted to the Scopes trial

“The thyroid gland, pituitary gland, thymus, pineal gland, and coccyx, … once considered useless by evolutionists, are now known to have important functions. The list of 180 “vestigial” structures is practically down to zero. Unfortunately, earlier Darwinists assumed that if they were ignorant of an organ’s function, then it had no function.”
"Tornado in a Junkyard" - book - by former atheist James Perloff

Vestigial Organs: Comparing ID and Darwinian Approaches - July 20, 2012
Excerpt: A favorite criticisms of ID is that it is a science stopper. The opposite is true. The Live Science article shows that the "vestigial organs" argument has not changed for over a century, since Wiedersheim coined the term and listed over a hundred examples (in 1893). Evolutionary theory, in fact, has been worse than a science stopper: its predictions have been flat out wrong. Only a handful of alleged vestigial organs remains from Wiedersheim's original list, and each of those is questionable.
Evolutionists try to have their cake and eat it too with their definition of the word vestigial:
From Jerry Coyne, "Evolution-of-the-Gaps" and Other Fallacies - Jonathan M. - December 5, 2012
Excerpt: Coyne anticipates the typical response to the argument from vestigiality:
"Opponents of evolution always raise the same argument when vestigial traits are cited as evidence for evolution. "The features are not useless," they say. "They are either useful for something, or we haven't yet discovered what they're for." They claim, in other words, that a trait can't be vestigial if it still has a function, or a function yet to be found.
But this rejoinder misses the point. Evolutionary theory doesn't say that vestigial characters have no function. A trait can be vestigial and functional at the same time. It is vestigial not because it's functionless, but because it no longer performs the function for which it evolved. (p. 58)"
But surely, by Coyne's reckoning, this loose definition of "vestigiality" would entail that every organ and structure is vestigial, since, in Coyne's view, all traits have evolved from something else. As Jonathan Wells explains in his own review of the book,
"If the human arm evolved from the leg of a four-footed mammal (as Darwinists claim), then the human arm is vestigial. And if (as Coyne argues) the wings of flying birds evolved from feathered forelimbs of dinosaurs that used them for other purposes, then the wings of flying birds are vestigial. This is the opposite of what most people mean by "vestigial."
For a prime example of evolution's failed predictions of vestigial organs, in October 2007, the appendix was found to have essential purpose in the human body:
Appendix has purpose:
Excerpt: "The appendix acts as a good safe house for bacteria," said Duke surgery professor Bill Parker.

Over sixty years ago we find these words from the prestigious Quarterly Review of Biology, “There is no longer any justification for regarding the vermiform appendix as a vestigial structure” (Straus, 1947).

The Useless Appendix and Other Darwinian Myths - June 2012
Excerpt: Uses of appendix:
*being "involved primarily in immune functions"
*"function[ing] as a lymphoid organ, assisting with the maturation of B lymphocytes (one variety of white blood cell) and in the production of the class of antibodies known as immunoglobulin A (IgA) antibodies."
*helping with "the production of molecules that help to direct the movement of lymphocytes to various other locations in the body"
*"suppress[ing] potentially destructive humoral (blood- and lymph-borne) antibody responses while promoting local immunity"
*Additionally, it is "an important 'back-up' that can be used in a variety of reconstructive surgical techniques"

Your Appendix Could Save Your Life - Rob Dunn - January 2012
Excerpt: Individuals without an appendix were four times more likely to have a recurrence of Clostridium difficile, exactly as Parker’s hypothesis predicted. Recurrence in individuals with their appendix intact occurred in 11% of cases. Recurrence in individuals without their appendix occurred in 48% of cases.

Evolutionists Multiply Miracles - February 12, 2013
Excerpt: William Parker, a surgeon,,, says it has the strongest evidence yet that the appendix serves a purpose. In a new study, published online this month in Comptes Rendus Palevol, the researchers compiled information on the diets of 361 living mammals, including 50 species now considered to have an appendix, and plotted the data on a mammalian evolutionary tree. They found that the 50 species are scattered so widely across the tree that the structure must have evolved independently at least 32 times, and perhaps as many as 38 times.
Randolph Nesse (U of Michigan) had an interesting take on this conclusion. “The conclusion that the appendix has appeared 32 times is amazing,” he said. “I do find their argument for the positive correlation of appendix and cecum sizes to be a convincing refutation of Darwin’s hypothesis” (about the appendix being vestigial).,,,

Surgical removal of the tonsils and appendix associated with risk of early heart attack - June 2011
Excerpt: The surgical removal of the appendix and tonsils before the age of 20 was associated with an increased risk of premature heart attack in a large population study performed in Sweden. Tonsillectomy increased the risk by 44% (hazard ratio 1.44) and appendectomy by 33% (HR 1.33). The risk increases were just statistically significant, and were even higher when the tonsils and appendix were both removed.

Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked
Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
"Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.

Fact-Checking Wikipedia on Common Descent: The Evidence from Comparative Anatomy - Jonathan M. - October 2011
Excerpt: "1. The human coccyx (tail bone) is functional inasmuch as it provides essential anchorage points for muscles.""2. The rare congenital deformities where a human is born with a tail-like appendage are usually resultant from a type of fatty tumor which has no relationship to a monkey's tail."

No, It’s Not a Tail! - May 2012
Excerpt: In 2004, an important study was published in the journal Cells Tissues Organs. It studied 52 different human embryos at different stages of development, and it reassessed our knowledge of human embryonic development. In that study, the authors note: "The eminence produces the caudal part of the notochord and, after closure of the caudal neuropore, all caudal structures, but it does not produce even a temporary ‘tail’ in the human.",,, As you can see, then, the idea that human embryos have temporary tails during their embryonic development has been thoroughly debunked in the scientific literature. The only question that remains is how long evolutionists will continue to use this myth to promote their failing hypothesis.
as to the 'human tail' birth defect:
The baby born with a tail is no evidence of evolution
Excerpt: Human babies born with tails are no more evidence that humans evolved from apes or monkeys than human babies born with 8 limbs are evidence that we evolved from spiders.

Behold, a Further Use for Body Hair - July 2012
Excerpt: Hair follicles, along with the folds and oil-producing glands in the skin, form a habitat for microorganisms that are vital to the skin's ability to fight off harmful pathogens.
As well, the 'predicted' plasticity of embryonic stem cells vs. adult stem cells, in curing diseases, is turning out to be a huge bust for the materialist who insisted that the government fund their research despite the moral outrage of many taxpayers who find the practice of using embryos abhorrent. The following site has several articles clearly pointing out the failure of embryonic vs. adult stem cells:

It seems obvious from the stem cell fiasco that materialistic scientists have a huge problem assigning proper value to humans in the first place. This clearly is because they have no firm moral basis to ground their morals values to as the Theistic scientist does have with God.

Documentary Ties Darwin to Disastrous Social Consequences - What Hath Darwin Wrought? - Sept. 2010

From Darwin to Hitler - Professor Richard Weikart lecture - 1 hour video

Moreover, the vestigial organ argument, just like the 'Junk DNA' argument, is basically a 'Bad Design' argument which is used by materialistic evolutionists. But the 'Bad Design' argument is a theological argument that quickly leaves the field of empirical science and enters squarely into the field of Philosophical, and even Theological, debate. In this following video Dr. William Lane Craig is surprised to find that evolutionary biologist Dr. Ayala uses theological argumentation in his book to support Darwinism and invites him to present evidence, any evidence at all, that Darwinism can do what he claims it can:

Refuting The Myth Of 'Bad Design' vs. Intelligent Design - William Lane Craig - video

In fact, it has been pointed out, by many people besides Dr. Craig, that the whole neo-Darwinian argument is, at its core beneath all the rhetoric, a theological argument:
On the Vastness of the Universe
Excerpt: Darwin’s objection to design inferences were theological. And in addition, Darwin overlooked many theological considerations in order to focus on the one. His one consideration was his assumption about what a god would or wouldn’t do. The considerations he overlooked are too numerous to mention here, but here’s a few:,,,
Here are peer-reviewed papers which point out the fact that many arguments for Darwinian evolution turn out to be primarily theological arguments at their core:
The role of theology in current evolutionary reasoning - Paul A. Nelson - Biology and Philosophy, 1996, Volume 11, Number 4, Pages 493-517
Excerpt: Evolutionists have long contended that the organic world falls short of what one might expect from an omnipotent and benevolent creator. Yet many of the same scientists who argue theologically for evolution are committed to the philosophical doctrine of methodological naturalism, which maintains that theology has no place in science. Furthermore, the arguments themselves are problematical, employing concepts that cannot perform the work required of them, or resting on unsupported conjectures about suboptimality. Evolutionary theorists should reconsider both the arguments and the influence of Darwinian theological metaphysics on their understanding of evolution.
Dr. Seuss Biology | Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video

Here's a supplemental video of Dr. Nelson

Paul Nelson: Can We Detect (Intelligent) Design? - Ratio Christi at The Ohio State University (lecture delivered Sept. 2012) - video

Charles Darwin, Theologian: Major New Article on Darwin's Use of Theology in the Origin of Species - May 2011

The Descent of Darwin – Pastor Joe Boot – (The Theodicy of Darwinism) – article
“The strength of materialism is that it obviates the problem of evil altogether. God need not be reconciled with evil, because neither exists. Therefore the problem of evil is no problem at all.,,, And of course since there is no evil, the materialist must, ironically, not use evil to justify atheism. The problem of evil presupposes the existence of an objective evil-the very thing the materialist seems to deny. The argument (from Theodicy) that led to materialism is exhausted just when it is needed most. In other words, the problem of evil is only generated by the prior claims that evil exists. One cannot then conclude, with Dawkins, that there is ‘no evil and no good’ in the universe.,,,
The fact that evolution’s acceptance hinges on a theological position would, for many, be enough to expel it from science. But evolution’s reliance on metaphysics is not its worst failing. Evolution’s real problem is not its metaphysics but its denial of its metaphysics.,,,

Cornelius Hunter – Darwin’s God – pg. 154 & 159

Finding Darwin's Real God - Michael Flannery - October 11, 2012
Excerpt: Even since the publication of Ken Miller's Finding Darwin's God, the Brown University biologist and leading spokesman for theistic evolution has claimed to have found deity in "the coherent power of Darwin's great idea" (p. 292). Miller sees no contradiction between Charles Darwin's theory and the three great Abrahamic religions, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. For him, there is "no reason for believers to draw a line in the sand between God and Darwin" (p. 267). Francis Collins seems to suggest much the same in his Language of God. Of course they weren't the first; long before Miller and Collins there was Charles Kingsley (1819-1875).
But is the god of Darwin really a "coherent" power for these faiths, wholly compatible with any or all of them? Wishful thinking aside, a little investigation reveals the true theistic evolutionary equation: Darwin + god = Man. Put more simply Darwin's god was Man. To see this clearly we must go to Darwin's own writings.,,,

"Why Bad Science Is Like Bad Religion" by Rupert Sheldrake: – Dec. 1, 2012
"Bad religion is arrogant, self-righteous, dogmatic and intolerant. And so is bad science. But unlike religious fundamentalists, scientific fundamentalists do not realize that their opinions are based on faith. They think they know the truth. They believe that science has already solved the fundamental questions, Committed materialists have made science into a kind of religion. They believe that there is no reality but material or physical reality. Consciousness is a by-product of the physical activity of the brain. Matter is unconscious. Nature is mechanical. Evolution is purposeless. God exists only as an idea in human minds, and hence in human heads.
These materialist beliefs are often taken for granted by scientists, not because they have thought about them critically, but because they haven't. To deviate from them is heresy, and heresy harms careers....Science is being held back by centuries-old assumptions that have hardened into dogmas."
Evolution and the Problem of Evil - Jay Richards - video
From Philosopher to Science Writer: The Dissemination of Evolutionary Thought - May 2011
Excerpt: The powerful theory of evolution hangs on this framework of thought that mandates naturalism. The science is weak but the metaphysics are strong. This is the key to understanding evolutionary thought. The weak arguments are scientific and the strong arguments, though filled with empirical observation and scientific jargon, are metaphysical. The stronger the argument, the more theological or philosophical.

"One of the great ironies of the atheist mind is that no-one is more cock-sure of exactly what God is like, exactly what God would think, exactly what God would do, than the committed atheist. Of course he doesn’t believe in God, but if God did exist, he knows precisely what God would be like and how God would behave. Or so he thinks",,,"
Eric - UD Blogger

Peacefulness, in a Grown Man, That is Not a Good Sign - Cornelius Hunter - August 2011
Excerpt: Evolution cannot even explain how a single protein first evolved, let alone the massive biological world that ensued. From biosonar to redwood trees, evolution is left with only just-so stories motivated by the dogma that evolution must be true. That dogma comes from metaphysics,

The Self-Refuting "God of the Gaps" Critique - Casey Luskin - October 18, 2012
Excerpt: Ironically, when critics make this accusation, they are usually committing a "gaps" fallacy themselves. How so? These very same materialists (1) admit that gaps in the evidence for Darwinian evolution exist, and (2) assume that those gaps can and will be filled by materialist explanations. Otherwise, they wouldn't be attacking ID for purportedly filling those gaps with "god." They can't make a "god of the gaps" accusation without making a "materialism of the gaps" argument -- one that assumes the truth of their own materialistic outlook.
Here, at about the 55:00 minute mark in the following video, Phillip Johnson sums up his, in my opinion, excellent lecture by noting that the refutation of his book, 'Darwin On Trial', in the Journal Nature, the most prestigious science journal in the world, was a theological argument about what God would and would not do and therefore Darwinism must be true, and the critique from Nature was not a refutation based on any substantiating scientific evidence for Darwinism that one would expect to be brought forth in such a prestigious venue to support such a, supposedly, well supported scientific theory:

Darwinism On Trial (Phillip E. Johnson) – lecture video

Many times atheists will claim that Intelligent Design is merely a negative argument against Darwinian evolution. And in that regards it is interesting to note the nature and history of the negative form of argument that Darwinism itself takes to try to refute the design hypothesis. The 'Design hypothesis' was overwhelmingly accepted as true during Darwin's day. Both classical neo-Darwinism and modern neo-Darwinism hold that natural selection action on random genetic variations (and mutations) can produce not only new biological form and structure but also the 'appearance of design' in living organisms (i.e. The "blind watchmaker" hypothesis). This was, and is, clearly a negative form of argument against design. Darwin argued for this idea in 'The Origin of Species' as well as in his letters. Thus Darwin himself sought to 'explain away' the appearance of Design, as Darwinists to this day still do. The late Ernst Mayr, and other evolutionists, have put the negative argument against design like this:
"The real core of Darwinism,, is the theory of natural selection. This theory is so important for Darwinian because it permits the explanation of adaption, the 'design' of the natural theologian, by natural means."
Ernst Mayr

"design without a designer"
Francisco Ayala

"Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."
Richard Dawkins - The Blind Watchmaker (1996) p.1

"Organisms appear as if they had been designed to perform in an astonishingly efficient way, and the human mind therefore finds it hard to accept that there need be no Designer to achieve this"
Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit - p. 30

living organisms "appear to have been carefully and artfully designed"


"The appearance of purposefulness is pervasive in nature."

George Gaylord Simpson
i.e. The main purpose of Darwinian evolution in the beginning, and always has been, to 'explain away' the overwhelming 'appearance of design' in life! Thus the next time someone tells you that Intelligent Design is just a negative argument against evolution, remind them that it is, in fact, evolution which started as, an still is, the negative argument against the overwhelming 'appearance of design' which is pervasive in nature.

In the following quote, Dr. John Avise explicitly uses Theodicy to try to make the case for Darwinism:
It Is Unfathomable That a Loving Higher Intelligence Created the Species – Cornelius Hunter - June 2012
Excerpt: "Approximately 0.1% of humans who survive to birth carry a duplicon-related disability, meaning that several million people worldwide currently are afflicted by this particular subcategory of inborn metabolic errors. Many more afflicted individuals probably die in utero before their conditions are diagnosed. Clearly, humanity bears a substantial health burden from duplicon-mediated genomic malfunctions. This inescapable empirical truth is as understandable in the light of mechanistic genetic operations as it is unfathomable as the act of a loving higher intelligence. [112]" - Dr. John Avise - "Inside The Human Genome"
There you have it. Evil exists and a loving higher intelligence wouldn’t have done it that way.

What’s more ironic is that Dr. John Avise’s theological argumentation from detrimental mutations for Darwinism turns out to be, in fact (without Darwinian Theological blinders on), a very powerful ‘scientific’ argument against Darwinism since nobody can seem to find any truly beneficial mutations that are on their way to building up functional complexity/information that is greater than what is already present in life:

From Discovering Intelligent Design: Two Thumbs Up - May 27, 2013
Excerpt: evolutionary paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould argued that "odd arrangements and funny solutions are the proof of evolution -- paths that a sensible God would never tread." Likewise Miller claims that an intelligent designer would have "been capable of remodeling a complete digit, like the thumb of a primate, to hold the panda's food."
It turns out that the panda's thumb is not a clumsy design. A study published in Nature used MRI and computer tomography to analyze the thumb and concluded that the bones "form a double pincer-like apparatus" thus "enabling the panda to manipulate objects with great dexterity."
The critics' objection is backed by little more than their subjective opinion about what a "sensible God" should have made.

"the argument from imperfection — i.e., organisms show imperfections of “design” that constitute evidence for evolution — is not a theological argument, but a scientific one. The reason why the recurrent laryngeal nerve, for example, makes a big detour around the aorta before attaching to the larynx is perfectly understandable by evolution (the nerve and artery used to line up, but the artery evolved backwards, constraining the nerve to move with it), but makes no sense under the idea of special creation — unless, that is, you believe that the creator designed things to make them look as if they evolved. No form of creationism/intelligent design can explain these imperfections, but they all, as Dobzhansky said, “make sense in the light of evolution."
Jerry Coyne - Why Evolution Is True
Funny how Coyne's 'scientific' argument from the poor design of the laryngeal nerve has now been shown to be false.

Further quotes on the theological premises of Darwinists from the now falsified 'Junk' DNA argument:
"The human genome is littered with pseudogenes, gene fragments, “orphaned” genes, “junk” DNA, and so many repeated copies of pointless DNA sequences that it cannot be attributed to anything that resembles intelligent design. . . . In fact, the genome resembles nothing so much as a hodgepodge of borrowed, copied, mutated, and discarded sequences and commands that has been cobbled together by millions of years of trial and error against the relentless test of survival. It works, and it works brilliantly; not because of intelligent design, but because of the great blind power of natural selection."
– Ken Miller

"Perfect design would truly be the sign of a skilled and intelligent designer. Imperfect design is the mark of evolution … we expect to find, in the genomes of many species, silenced, or ‘dead,’ genes: genes that once were useful but are no longer intact or expressed … the evolutionary prediction that we’ll find pseudogenes has been fulfilled—amply … our genome—and that of other species—are truly well populated graveyards of dead genes"
– Jerry Coyne

"We have to wonder why the Intelligent Designer added to our genome junk DNA, repeated copies of useless DNA, orphan genes, gene fragments, tandem repeats, and pseudo¬genes, none of which are involved directly in the making of a human being. In fact, of the entire human genome, it appears that only a tiny percentage is actively involved in useful protein production. Rather than being intelligently designed, the human genome looks more and more like a mosaic of mutations, fragment copies, borrowed sequences, and discarded strings of DNA that were jerry-built over millions of years of evolution."
– Michael Shermer
And, to point out once again, the theological 'bad design' argument, which Darwinists unwittingly continually use to try to make their case, is actually its own independent discipline of study within Theology itself called Theodicy:
Is Your Bod Flawed by God? - Feb. 2010
Excerpt: Theodicy (the discipline in Theism of reconciling natural evil with a good God) might be a problem for 19th-century deism and simplistic natural theology, but not for Biblical theology. It was not a problem for Jesus Christ, who was certainly not oblivious to the blind, the deaf, the lepers and the lame around him. It was not a problem for Paul, who spoke of the whole creation groaning and travailing in pain till the coming redemption of all things (Romans 8).

The Problem of Evil by Benjamin D. Wiker - April 2009
Excerpt: We still want to cry, Job-like, to those inscrutable depths, "Who are you to orchestrate everything around us puny and pitiable creatures, leaving us shuddering in the darkness, ignorant, blasted, and buffeted? It‘s all well and good to say, ‘Trust me! It‘ll all be made right in the end,‘ while you float unscathed above it all. Grinding poverty, hunger, thirst, frustration, rejection, toil, death of our loved ones, blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation — that‘s the meal we‘re served! You‘d sing a different tune if you were one of us and got a taste of your own medicine."
What could we say against these depths if the answer we received was not an argument but an incarnation, a full and free submission by God to the very evils about which we complain? This submission would be a kind of token, a sign that evil is very real indeed, bringing the incarnate God blood-sweating anxiety, excruciating pain, humiliation, torture, and finally a twisted and miserable annihilation on the cross. As real as such evil is, however, the resurrection reveals that it is somehow mysteriously comprehended within the divine plan.
With the Incarnation, the reality of evil is absorbed into the deity, not dissolved into thin air, because God freely tastes the bitterness of the medicine as wounded healer, not distant doctor. Further, given the drastic nature of this solution, we begin to recognize that God takes the problem of evil more seriously than we could ever have taken it ourselves. ,,,
Did God Create Evil? (William Dembski) – video

Finding a Good God in an Evil World - William Dembski

Does God Exist? - Finding a Good God in an Evil World
Old Earth Creationism and the Fall, William Dembski - Christian Research Journal, volume 34, number 4(2011).
Excerpt: My solution (to Theodicy) in my book “The End of Christianity is to argue that, just as the effects of salvation at the cross reach both forward in time (saving present day Christians) and backward in time (saving Old Testament saints), so the effects of the fall reach forward in time as well as backward. What makes the argument work is the ability of God to arrange events at one time to anticipate events at a later time.,,,
Moreover, it has been pointed out that insisting the “‘good’ creation meant no plant or animal death” before 'the fall' gets in the way of sound Biblical exegesis,

Perfect Creation Vs. Perfect Plan

Little do most atheists realize that the existence of evil itself necessitates the existence of Good. i.e. you cannot disprove God by pointing to evil, because for evil even to exist in reality good must exist in the first place. i.e. Evil is merely a departure from the way things 'ought' to be and thus evil cannot exist independently without objective morality! All a atheist does when he points to evil in this world is to point out the fact that this world is not perfectly good, Yet Christianity never claimed we were in heaven in the first place. i.e. by pointing to evil (the absence of good), the atheist actually affirms the Christian belief that we are in a fallen world.

The Problem of Evil & Suffering - Videos by William Lane Craig - playlist

William Lane Craig - Moral Relativism - Cruel Logic - video

If God, Why Evil? (Norman Geisler) - video

LEE STROBEL: - The Case for Faith - Full Documentary
“If you think of this world as a place intended simply for our happiness, you find it quite intolerable: think of it as a place of training and correction and it’s not so bad.”
CS Lewis God in the Dock, page 52
What about Suffering and the Existence of God – William Lane Craig – video

The Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve is sometimes used by Darwinists as a example of 'bad design';
Medical Considerations for the Intelligent Design of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve - Casey Luskin - October, 2010 Conclusion: Clearly, the RLN is performing many jobs, not just one. Its "intended function" is much more than simply innervating the larynx; and the larynx is in fact innervated directly, exactly as ID-critics say it should be.,, The argument against intelligent design of the RLN has collapsed.
Believe it or not, I've even debated evolutionists who insist the human eye is 'poorly designed', as if they could 'randomly' design a better one, and even though humans can't even produce a single novel functional protein by Darwinian means, much less trillions upon trillions of integrated proteins working in precise concert:

Evolution Vs. The Miracle Of The Eye - Molecular Animation - video

The Seeing Eye - part 1 of 2 - Dr. David Menton - video

Evolution vs The Eye - Miracle Or Mistake? - article
How Do You Build a Transparent Cornea Out of Cells and Proteins? - January 10, 2014
Excerpt: The unique transparent quality of the cornea arises from its remarkably ordered architecture of aligned and regularly spaced fibrils with a small, consistent diameter (∼30 nm), which are arranged, not into fibers or fascicles as in most other tissues but in superimposed, flattened layers, or lamellae. Lamellae and their component collagen fibrils exhibit preferential orientations throughout the corneal thickness, which appear to be closely related to the biomechanical loads to which the tissue is subjected. In adult vertebrates, lamellae traverse the full diameter of the cornea for most of its thickness, and in the avian eye -- the subject of most developmental studies -- undergo a gradual rotation in their orientation with depth. Individual collagen fibrils within midstromal lamellae also appear to traverse the entire diameter of the cornea, a distance of ∼11 mm in adult human eyes. The extraordinary level of order in matrix organization within a hierarchy of fibril, lamella, and stroma overall appears to reflect a considerable level of regulatory influence presumably involving both cell activity and intermolecular interactions.,,,
We've been discussing design just in the cornea -- one little organ in a developing bird embryo. Now extend that thought to the rest of the eye, the brain, and the whole bird that will hatch out of the egg in a few days.

New Book (Doesn’t) Explain How Eyes Evolved; The Bible Versus Evolution; Evolutionists Say “We See” - December 2011
Quote: In fact biology’s vision systems display all manner of high-tech gadgetry and creativity. There are telephoto optics, scanning optics, and mirrors. Not surprisingly, evolution over and over fails to explain how these wonders arose spontaneously.,,, do men love darkness rather than light? Given evolutionists unceasing, unswerving, inexplicable attachment to twisting the science, this too seems quite accurate. They won’t even consider the possibility that their bizarre ideas could be wrong. They seem to be dogmatically attached to scientific lies.
Irreducible Complexity in Your Ears - video

The Hearing Ear by Dr. David Menton - video

How the ear works - animated video
Our Ears Are Amazing! They Must Have Evolved - March 29, 2013
Excerpt: Our ears are amazing signal detectors that reconcile great sensitivity with an enormous dynamic range. The faintest sounds that we can hear vibrate our eardrums by less than 1 pm [picometer, a trillionth of a meter] and are a trillion times less intense than the loudest sounds that we can tolerate. We can distinguish pure tones that differ in frequency by less than 0.2%, yet the frequency range of our ears exceeds a thousandfold.

"How came the Bodies of Animals to be contrived with so much Art…. Was the Eye contrived without skill in Opticks, and the Ear without Knowledge of Sounds?" -
Sir Isaac Newton

Human Hearing Outsmarts Physical Limits - February 15, 2013
Excerpt: "Oppenheim and Magnasco discovered that the accuracy with which the volunteers determined pitch and timing simultaneously was usually much better, on average, than the Gabor limit. In one case, subjects beat the Gabor limit for the product of frequency and time uncertainty by a factor of 50, clearly implying their brains were using a nonlinear algorithm."
That (hyper acuity) algorithm is encoded in the ear and the brain.

Proverbs 20:12
The hearing ear and the seeing eye, The LORD has made both of them.
Human Brain Has More Switches Than All Computers on Earth - video

Medical Considerations for the Intelligent Design of the Recurrent Laryngeal Nerve - Luskin - October 2010

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - video

One Body - animation - video

And just how fearfully and wonderfully made are we? Well here are a few examples:

Abortion? - It's all about love:

Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Dr. David Menton - video

The Baby In The Womb (for full video, please follow link in description)

Alexander Tsiaras: Conception to birth -- visualized

Golden Ratio in Human Body - video

Some materialists don’t ever seem to get it. In fact, after years of debating materialists on the internet, I truly believe some atheists actually just don't ever want to 'get it' no matter what evidence is presented to them. Another factor, in materialistic dogmatism, may very well be because some materialists have been thoroughly indoctrinated with many falsehoods about evolution, in public schools, as they grew up:

Falsehoods In Textbooks - Ten Icons of Evolution - overview - Dr. Jonathan Wells - video

The "Icons of Evolution" - video playlist - video

Dr. Wells writes a article defending his criticism against the Ten Icons of Evolution in detail here:

Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution"

(Not) Making the Grade: Recent Textbooks & Their Treatment of Evolution (Icons of Evolution update) podcast and paper - October 2011

Haeckel Again: This Time with Plants - October 8, 2012
Selling Evolution To Young People Through Deception
podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin sits down with CSC Fellow Dr. Cornelius Hunter, who recently signed up to take a free online course at Duke University titled "Introduction to Genetics and Evolution." Tune in as Dr. Hunter shares about his experience & discusses the misrepresentations and fallacies that are presented in the typical undergraduate evolutionary biology course.

Back to School to Learn about the "Darwin's Finches" Icon of Evolution - Casey Luskin - September 22, 2012
Excerpt: Frank J. Sulloway of Harvard University showed that, really, Darwin was hardly influenced by finches and scarcely observed their feeding habits. He did not correlate their diets and beaks; in fact, Darwin collected too few specimens to determine whether any finch species was unique to each island. He did not even keep track of where he picked up every specimen. Really, no finch species was unique to any one island. Unfortunately, some teachers and writers remain unaware of Sulloway's historical findings.
(Alberto A. Martinez, Science Secrets: The Truth about Darwin's Finches, Einstein's Wife, and Other Myths, pp. 95-96 (University of Pittsburgh Press, 2011).),,,
It looks like Jonathan Wells has been vindicated once again. It would be nice to think that someday biology textbooks will be amended accordingly.
One of the most blatant examples of a known falsehood being taught as proof of evolution is Haeckel's Embryo drawings. Though the drawings have been known to be fraudulent for over 100 years;
Darwin Lobbyists Defend Using Fraudulent Embryo Drawings in the Classroom - Casey Luskin - October 11, 2012
Excerpt: embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them "one of the most famous fakes in biology," or Stephen Jay Gould who said "Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions," and that "in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent," Haeckel "simply copied the same figure over and over again." Likewise, in a 1997 article titled "Haeckel's Embryos: Fraud Rediscovered," the journal Science recognized that "[g]enerations of biology students may have been misled by a famous set of drawings of embryos published 123 years ago by the German biologist Ernst Haeckel." ,,,
So if you're a Darwin lobbyist defending a textbook that uses Haeckel's inaccurate drawings, be forewarned: neither Bob Richards nor any other credible authorities I'm aware of endorse the unqualified and uncritical use of Haeckel's original inaccurate drawings in biology textbooks today. You're on your own.
Haeckel's Bogus Embryo Drawings - video

Icons of Evolution 10th Anniversary: Haeckel's Embryos - January 2011 - video

Haeckel's Embryos - original fraudulent drawing

Actual Embryos - photos (Early compared to Intermediate and Late stages);
There is no highly conserved embryonic stage in the vertebrates: - Richardson MK - 1997
Excerpt: Contrary to recent claims that all vertebrate embryos pass through a stage when they are the same size, we find a greater than 10-fold variation in greatest length at the tailbud stage. Our survey seriously undermines the credibility of Haeckel's drawings,
Current Textbooks Misuse Embryology to Argue for Evolution - June 2010

This is all interesting because Charles Darwin himself considered embryo evidence as the 'strongest class of facts' in favor of his theory:
"The embryos of the most distinct species belonging to the same class are closely similar, but become, when fully developed, widely dissimilar." This is,,, "by far the strongest single class of facts in favor of my theory."
Charles Darwin - Origin of Species (1859), Letter to Asa Gray (1860)

The Strongest Single Class of Facts – 2011
Excerpt: “Embryology is to me is by far the strongest single class of facts in favor” of my theory of evolution, was the claim of Charles Darwin. The nineteenth century embryological evidence was pivotal for the development of Darwin’s theory of evolution.
Just two months before the release of the first edition of The Origin of Species in September 1859, Darwin wrote to Charles Lyell, “Embryology in Chapter VIII is one of my strongest points I think.”
Haeckel's Embryo Drawings Make Cameos in Proposed Texas Instructional Materials - Casey Luskin - June 2011

Colliding With The Pharyngula: My Encounter With PZ Myers (On Embryology) - Jonathan M - June 2011

Here is a excellent deconstruction of PZ Myer's favorite Icon Of Evolution (PZ named his 'science' blog after it!);

Challenging the Precious Pharyngula - Casey Luskin - July 2011
Three Flawed Evolutionary Models of Embryological Development and One Correct One - Casey Luskin - 2011
Excerpt: As a paper in Nature said last year: "both the model and the concept of the phylotypic period remain controversial subjects in the literature." PZ generally refuses to address this literature, but it nonetheless calls into question the very concept that defines this model and gives PZ's Pharyngula blog its name.

Vertebrate Gene Expression and Other Properties Don't Support a "Phylotypic" Stage - Casey Luskin - June 14, 2013
Excerpt: a new article in PLoS Genetics, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates," shows that,, an analysis of the genome based on Darwinian assumptions fails to confirm many predictions of the "phylotypic" stage. ,,, (as they report),,,
"During development, vertebrate embryos pass through a "phylotypic" stage, during which their morphology is most similar between different species. This gave rise to the hourglass model, which predicts the highest developmental constraints during mid-embryogenesis. In the last decade, a large effort has been made to uncover the relation between developmental constraints and the evolution of the genome. Several studies reported gene characteristics that change according to the hourglass model, e.g. sequence conservation, age, or expression. Here, we first show that some of the previous conclusions do not hold out under detailed analysis of the data."

(Barbara Piasecka, Paweł Lichocki, Sebastien Moretti, Sven Bergmann, Marc Robinson-Rechavi, "The Hourglass and the Early Conservation Models -- Co-Existing Patterns of Developmental Constraints in Vertebrates Barbara Piasecka," PLoS Genetics, Vol. 9(4) (April, 2013).),,,
Threatening the Pharyngula--The Debate With PZ Myers on Evidence from Embryology - audio podcast - August 2011
The mouse is not enough - February 2011
Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.”

Humans, Chimpanzees and Monkeys Share DNA but Not Gene Regulatory Mechanisms - (Nov. 6, 2012)
Excerpt: Dr. Gilad reported that up to 40% of the differences in the expression or activity patterns of genes between humans, chimpanzees and rhesus monkeys can be explained by regulatory mechanisms that determine whether and how a gene's recipe for a protein is transcribed to the RNA molecule that carries the recipe instructions to the sites in cells where proteins are manufactured.,,,
Dr. Gilad also determined that the epigenetics process known as histone modification also differs in the three species. The presence of histone marks during gene transcription indicates that the process is being prevented or modified. "These data allowed us to identify both conserved and species-specific enhancer and repressor regulatory elements, as well as characterize similarities and differences across species in transcription factor binding to these regulatory elements," Dr. Gilad said.
Darwin's Doubt (Part 8) by Paul Giem - developmental gene regulatory networks and epigenetic information - video
A Listener's Guide to the Meyer-Marshall Debate: Focus on the Origin of Information Question -Casey Luskin - December 4, 2013
Excerpt: "There is always an observable consequence if a dGRN (developmental gene regulatory network) subcircuit is interrupted. Since these consequences are always catastrophically bad, flexibility is minimal, and since the subcircuits are all interconnected, the whole network partakes of the quality that there is only one way for things to work. And indeed the embryos of each species develop in only one way." -
Eric Davidson

Gene Regulatory Networks in Embryos Depend on Pre-existing Spatial Coordinates – Jonathan Wells – July 2011
Excerpt: The development of metazoan embryos requires the precise spatial deployment of specific cellular functions. This deployment depends on gene regulatory networks (GRNs), which operate downstream of initial spatial inputs (E. H. Davidson, Nature 468 [2010]: 911). Those initial inputs depend, in turn, on pre-existing spatial coordinate systems. In Drosophila oocytes, for example, spatial localization of the earliest-acting elements of the maternal GRN depends on the prior establishment of an anteroposterior body axis by antecedent asymmetries in the ovary. Those asymmetries appear to depend on cytoskeletal and membrane patterns rather than on DNA sequences,,,

Gene Regulation Differences Between Humans, Chimpanzees Very Complex – Oct. 17, 2013
Excerpt: Although humans and chimpanzees share,, similar genomes (70% per Tomkins), previous studies have shown that the species evolved major differences in mRNA expression levels.,,,

Evolution by Splicing – Comparing gene transcripts from different species reveals surprising splicing diversity. – Ruth Williams – December 20, 2012
Excerpt: A major question in vertebrate evolutionary biology is “how do physical and behavioral differences arise if we have a very similar set of genes to that of the mouse, chicken, or frog?”,,,
A commonly discussed mechanism was variable levels of gene expression, but both Blencowe and Chris Burge,,, found that gene expression is relatively conserved among species.
On the other hand, the papers show that most alternative splicing events differ widely between even closely related species. “The alternative splicing patterns are very different even between humans and chimpanzees,” said Blencowe.,,,

"Where (chimps and humans) really differ, and they differ by orders of magnitude, is in the genomic architecture outside the protein coding regions. They are vastly, vastly, different.,, The structural, the organization, the regulatory sequences, the hierarchy for how things are organized and used are vastly different between a chimpanzee and a human being in their genomes."
Raymond Bohlin (per Richard Sternberg) - 9:29 minute mark of video
Modern Synthesis of Neo-Darwinism Is Dead - No Evidence For Body Plan Morphogenesis From Embryonic Mutations - Paul Nelson - video

Darwin or Design? - Paul Nelson at Saddleback Church - Nov. 2012 - ontogenetic depth (excellent update) - video
Text from one of the Saddleback slides:
1. Animal body plans are built in each generation by a stepwise process, from the fertilized egg to the many cells of the adult. The earliest stages in this process determine what follows.
2. Thus, to change -- that is, to evolve -- any body plan, mutations expressed early in development must occur, be viable, and be stably transmitted to offspring.
3. But such early-acting mutations of global effect are those least likely to be tolerated by the embryo.

Losses of structures are the only exception to this otherwise universal generalization about animal development and evolution. Many species will tolerate phenotypic losses if their local (environmental) circumstances are favorable. Hence island or cave fauna often lose (for instance) wings or eyes.

Understanding Ontogenetic Depth, Part II: Natural Selection Is a Harsh Mistress - Paul Nelson - April 7, 2011

The Miracle of Development Part 1 - Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video - April 2013

The Miracle of Development Part 2 - Origins with Dr. Paul A. Nelson - video - April 2013

The Miracle Of Development
When Theory Trumps Observation: Responding to Charles Marshall's Review of Darwin's Doubt -Stephen C. Meyer - October 2, 2013
Excerpt: Developmental gene regulatory networks (dGRN) are control systems. A labile (flexible) dGRN would generate (uncontrolled) variable outputs, precisely the opposite of what a functional control system does. It is telling that although many evolutionary theorists (like Marshall) have speculated about early labile dGRNs, no one has ever described such a network in any functional detail -- and for good reason. No developing animal that biologists have observed exhibits the kind of labile developmental gene regulatory network that the evolution of new body plans requires. Indeed, Eric Davidson, when discussing hypothetical labile dGRNs, acknowledges that we are speculating "where no modern dGRN provides a model" since they "must have differed in fundamental respects from those now being unraveled in our laboratories."8
By ignoring this evidence, Marshall and other defenders of evolutionary theory reverse the epistemological priority of the historical scientific method as pioneered by Charles Lyell, Charles Darwin and others.9 Rather than treating our present experimentally based knowledge as the key to evaluating the plausibility of theories about the past, Marshall uses an evolutionary assumption about what must have happened in the past (transmutation) to justify disregarding experimental observations of what does, and does not, occur in biological systems. The requirements of evolutionary doctrine thus trump our observations about how nature and living organisms actually behave. What we know best from observation takes a back seat to prior beliefs about how life must have arisen.

Revisiting Those Early Developmental Stages: A Response to PZ Myers - Jonathan M. June 22, 2011
Excerpt: Let's take an illustrative example. Anurans and urodeles are both modern amphibian groups which we would consider to be closely related. However, there is significant difference in the source of their primordial germ cells. For instance, in urodeles, they arise from unspecific ectodermal cells at the blastula stage; whereas, in anurans, they arise from specific cells of endodermal origin, the cells possessing cytoplasmic granules that originated in the unfertilized egg. Now, here's the conundrum. The difference relates to organs of extreme importance -- i.e. the germ cells. The difference is not only substantial, but it occurs extremely early in development.

Evolution Just Took Another Hit—Right Where it Counts - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012
Excerpt: These reproduction subsystems, according to evolution, should align with the other biological subsystems to form a consistent evolutionary tree. This consistency is, evolutionists say, a powerful confirmation of their idea. Except when it isn’t. Now a tiny lizard from Africa has been found to have a reproduction subsystem that is unique and remarkably similar to that of humans.

A Piece from the Developmental Symphony - February 2012
Excerpt: Embryonic development is an astounding process that seems to happen "automatically.",,, The timing of each step is too precise and the complexity is too intricate to assume that these processes are the mere accumulation by happenstance of changes to regulatory genes. Each gene plays its role at a certain time, and like a symphony, each is activated and silenced in turn such that the final result is a grand performance of orchestrated effort that could only have occurred through design.
FLIGHT: The Genius of Birds - Embryonic development - video

In fact embryonic development is now found to be unique for each mammalian species as well:
The mouse is not enough - February 2011
Excerpt: Richard Behringer, who studies mammalian embryogenesis at the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas said, “There is no ‘correct’ system. Each species is unique and uses its own tailored mechanisms to achieve development. By only studying one species (eg, the mouse), naive scientists believe that it represents all mammals.”
Marsupial Embryos Challenge Common Ancestry – Casey Luskin - audio podcast
Transcription Factors: More Species-Specific Biology - Cornelius Hunter - October 2011
Excerpt: In fact, the binding sites are often so-called “lineage-specific,” meaning that the transcription factor binds to a section of DNA that is unique to that species. As one writer explained: "Remarkably, many of these RABS [repeat-associated binding sites] were found in lineage-specific repeat elements that are absent in the comparison species, suggesting that large numbers of binding sites arose more recently in evolution and may have rewired the regulatory architecture in embryonic stem cells on a substantial scale."

Another Key Evidence For Evolution is Getting Squashed - Cornelius Hunter - May 2012
Excerpt: Confusion abounds and the evolutionists conclude, contra the traditional evolution view, that given the early embryo of an animal species, it would be possible to infer “comparatively little about its evolutionary trajectory.” That once powerful evidence that Darwin and the evolutionists proclaimed is now in the crowded dustbin of evolutionary proofs.
Moreover, materialists do not seem to notice that their theory of evolution expects and even demands there should be undeniably clear evidence for a genetically, and morphologically, unique species on earth somewhere since man first suddenly appeared on earth. Indeed there should be many such unambiguous examples they could produce to silence their critics. Darwinists simply have no examples of speciation which they can offer as proof for their theory
"Perhaps the most obvious challenge is to demonstrate evolution empirically. There are, arguably, some 2 to 10 million species on earth. The fossil record shows that most species survive somewhere between 3 and 5 million years. In that case, we ought to be seeing small but significant numbers of originations (new species) .. every decade."
Keith Stewart Thomson, Professor of Biology and Dean of the Graduate School, Yale University (Nov. -Dec. American Scientist, 1997 pg. 516)
In fact instead of any originations of any new species on the earth, what we see now is massive extinction of species:
The current rate of extinction is from 100 to 10,000 species a year. This is between 100 and 1000 times faster than our best estimate of historical rates. (of note: it is thought that the "impact of man" is accelerating the extinction rate).
Moreover, a materialist will try to assert evolution of species is happening all the time, all over the place. Yet, once again the hard evidence betrays the materialist in his attempts to validate his evolutionary scenario.
“Whatever we may try to do within a given species, we soon reach limits which we cannot break through. A wall exists on every side of each species. That wall is the DNA coding, which permits wide variety within it (within the gene pool, or the genotype of a species)-but no exit through that wall. Darwin's gradualism is bounded by internal constraints, beyond which selection is useless."
R. Milner, Encyclopedia of Evolution (1990)

Excerpt: There are limitations to variability. "The real number of variations is lesser than expected one. There are no blue-eyed Drosophila, no viviparous birds or turtles, no hexapod mammals, etc. Such observations provoke non-Darwinian evolutionary concepts. Darwin tried rather unsuccessfully to solve the problem of the contradictions between his model of random variability and the existence of constraints. He tried to hide this complication citing abundant facts on other phenomena. The authors of the modern versions of Darwinism followed this strategy, allowing the question to persist. ...However, he was forced to admit some cases where creating anything humans may wish for was impossible. For example, when the English farmers decided to get cows with thick hams, they soon abandoned this attempt since they perished too frequently during delivery. Evidently such cases provoked an idea on the limitations to variability... The problem of the constraints on variation was not solved neither within the framework of the proper Darwin’s theory, nor within the framework of modern Darwinism."

GMO Bulls Now A Reality - January 11, 2014
Excerpt: "Due to genetic selection and experiments, the Belgian Blue is a humongous species of Bull, packed with muscles and meat.
...There is a gene that regulates the growth of muscles in cattle, These cows have been selectively bred from animals that contain a copy of this gene that doesn't work, as a result their muscles grow far larger than normal [They have a deletion mutation that prevents control of muscular growth = loss of genetic material].
..Their uninhibited muscle growth presents a lot of health hazards, calves can develop enlarged tongues and stiff legs which make it difficult for them to eat and move, leading to an early and painful death."

"Despite a close watch, we have witnessed no new species emerge in the wild in recorded history. Also, most remarkably, we have seen no new animal species emerge in domestic breeding. That includes no new species of fruitflies in hundreds of millions of generations in fruitfly studies, where both soft and harsh pressures have been deliberately applied to the fly populations to induce speciation. And in computer life, where the term “species” does not yet have meaning, we see no cascading emergence of entirely new kinds of variety beyond an initial burst. In the wild, in breeding, and in artificial life, we see the emergence of variation. But by the absence of greater change, we also clearly see that the limits of variation appear to be narrowly bounded, and often bounded within species."
Kevin Kelly from his book, "Out of Control"

The Receding Myth of "Junk DNA" - Jonathan Wells - October 6, 2011
Excerpt: Farrell is shocked by my statement in The Myth of Junk DNA that biologists have never observed speciation (the origin of a new species) by natural selection. He refers to "extensive work being done in the field" by two biologists, H. Allen Orr and Matthew L. Niemiller.
But Orr and Niemiller study the genetics of existing species and try to find evidence supporting hypotheses about their origins. As I documented in my 2006 book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design, there is nothing in the scientific literature showing that they or any others have ever observed the origin of a new species by natural selection.
In plants, new species have been observed to originate by chromosome doubling (polyploidy). But speciation by polyploidy is not due to natural selection (nor to genetic drift, another process mentioned by Farrell), and even evolutionary biologists acknowledge that polyploidy does not solve Darwin's problem.

Sorry, Ring Species Do Not Provide Good Evidence for the Origin of New Species by the Darwinian Mechanism - April 2012
Excerpt: The classic example of a ring species was the herring gull, with populations circling the northern hemisphere. But this example is not what it has been advertised to be. In a 2004 paper titled "The herring gull complex is not a ring species," German and Dutch biologists concluded:
"What earlier authors... regarded as "the herring gull" turned out to be an assemblage of several distinct taxa (argentatus, vegae, smithsonianus), which are not each other's closest relatives. Our results show that the ring-species model does not adequately describe the evolution of the herring gull group."

At one of her many public talks, she [Lynn Margulis] asks the molecular biologists in the audience to name a single unambiguous example of the formation of a new species by the accumulation of mutations. Her challenge goes unmet.
Michael Behe - Darwin's Black Box - Page 26

Natural Selection and Evolution's Smoking Gun, - American Scientist - 1997
“A matter of unfinished business for biologists is the identification of evolution's smoking gun,”... “the smoking gun of evolution is speciation, not local adaptation and differentiation of populations.”
Keith Stewart Thomson - evolutionary biologist

“The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the position of some people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.”
Roger Lewin - Historic Chicago 'Macroevolution' conference of 1980
Evolution - Tested And Falsified - Don Patton - video

All examples of speciation put forth by materialists all turn out to be trivial examples of reproductive isolation:
"The closest science has come to observing and recording actual speciation in animals is the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky in Drosophilia paulistorium fruit flies. But even here, only reproductive isolation, not a new species, appeared."
from page 32 "Acquiring Genomes" Lynn Margulis.

The Trouble with Darwin by Kas Thomas - February 16, 2014
Excerpt: Darwin's landmark work was called The Origin of Species, yet it doesn't actually explain in detail how speciation happens (and in fact, no one has seen it happen in the laboratory, unless you want to count plant hybridization or certain breeding anomalies in fruit flies). Almost everything in evolutionary theory is based on "survival of the fittest," a tautology that explains nothing. ("Fittest" means most able to survive. Survival of the fittest means survival of those who survive.) The means by which new survival skills emerge is, at best, murky. Of course, we can't expect Darwin himself to have proposed detailed genetic or epigenetic causes for speciation, given that he was unaware of the work of Mendel, but the fact is, even today we have a hard time figuring out how things like a bacterial flagellum first appeared.
When I was in school, we were taught that mutations in DNA are the driving force behind evolution, an idea that is now thoroughly discredited. The overwhelming majority of non-neutral mutations are deleterious (reducing, not increasing, survival). This is easily demonstrated in the lab. Most mutations lead to loss of function, not gain of function. Evolutionary theory, it turns out, is great at explaining things like the loss of eyesight, over time, by cave-dwelling creatures. It's terrible at explaining gain of function.
It's also terrible at explaining the speed at which speciation occurs. (Of course, The Origin of Species is entirely silent on the subject of how life arose from abiotic conditions in the first place.) It doesn't explain the Cambrian Explosion, for example, or the sudden appearance of intelligence in hominids,,,
Of note: Dr. Kas Thomas is a graduate of the University of California at Irvine and Davis (with degrees in biology and microbiology) and a former University of California Regents Fellow, Thomas has taught biology, bacteriology, and laboratory physics at the college level.

Selection and Speciation: Why Darwinism Is False - Jonathan Wells:
Excerpt: there are observed instances of secondary speciation — which is not what Darwinism needs — but no observed instances of primary speciation, not even in bacteria. British bacteriologist Alan H. Linton looked for confirmed reports of primary speciation and concluded in 2001: “None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another.”

Scant search for the Maker
Excerpt: But where is the experimental evidence? None exists in the literature claiming that one species has been shown to evolve into another. Bacteria, the simplest form of independent life, are ideal for this kind of study, with generation times of 20 to 30 minutes, and populations achieved after 18 hours. But throughout 150 years of the science of bacteriology, there is no evidence that one species of bacteria has changed into another, in spite of the fact that populations have been exposed to potent chemical and physical mutagens and that, uniquely, bacteria possess extrachromosomal, transmissible plasmids. Since there is no evidence for species changes between the simplest forms of unicellular life, it is not surprising that there is no evidence for evolution from prokaryotic to eukaryotic cells, let alone throughout the whole array of higher multicellular organisms. - Alan H. Linton - emeritus professor of bacteriology, University of Bristol.

Wired Science: One Long Bluff - Refuting a recent finch speciation claim - Jonathan Wells - Nov. 2009
Excerpt: "Does the report in Wired Science mean that “biologists have witnessed that elusive moment when a single species (of Galapagos finch) splits in two?” Absolutely not."

Darwin 'Wrong': Species Living Together Does Not Encourage Evolution - December 20, 2013
Excerpt: Charles Darwin's theory of evolution set out in the Origin of Species has been proven wrong by scientists studying ovenbirds.
Researchers at Oxford University found that species living together do not evolve differently to avoid competing with one another for food and habitats – a theory put forward by Darwin 150 years ago.
The ovenbird is one of the most diverse bird families in the world and researchers were looking to establish the processes causing them to evolve.
Published in Nature, the research compared the beaks, legs and songs of 90% of ovenbird species.
Findings showed that while the birds living together were consistently more different than those living apart, this was the result of age differences. Once the variation of age was accounted for, birds that live together were more similar than those living separately – directly contradicting Darwin's view.
The species that lived together had beaks and legs no more different than those living apart,,,
,,,there is no shortage of evidence for competition driving divergent evolution in some very young lineages. But we found no evidence that this process explains differences across a much larger sample of species.,,,
He said that the reasons why birds living together appear to evolve less are "difficult to explain",,,
The Grants (who studied Darwin's finches) made a long presentation at Stanford in 2009 on their work. It is available for all to see on the internet. In it they give the game away. All the so called Darwin finches can inner breed. Doesn’t happen much but it does happen and they have viable offspring that reproduce. Here is the link:

Darwin's Legacy | Lecture 5 - video

To save you some time. Start at about 109:00 and follow Rosemary for a few minutes till at least 112:00. Then go to 146:30 and listen to Peter. Before this is the inane prattle by two of Stanford’s finest who do not understand that the Grants are saying that the whole evolution thing is a crock.

Moreover, new research now shows that the Darwinian understanding of species formation (i.e. reproductive isolation) is extremely incomplete:
Genetic Reproductive Barriers: Long-Held Assumption About Emergence of New Species Questioned - Sep. 2, 2013
Excerpt: The rate at which genetic reproductive barriers arise does not predict the rate at which new species form in nature," Rabosky said. "If these results are true more generally -- which we would not yet claim but do suspect -- it would imply that our understanding of species formation is extremely incomplete because we've spent so long studying the wrong things, due to this erroneous assumption that the main cause of species formation is the formation of barriers to reproduction.
Here is a detailed refutation, by Casey Luskin, to TalkOrigins severely misleading site on the claimed evidence for observed macro-evolution (speciation);

Specious Speciation: The Myth of Observed Large-Scale Evolutionary Change - Casey Luskin - January 2012 - article

Here is part 2 of a podcast exposing the Talk Origin's speciation FAQ as a 'literature bluff'

Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin - podcast

Related notes:

A Critique of Douglas Theobald’s – “29 Evidences for Macroevolution” by Ashby Camp

Confusing Evidence for Common Ancestry with Evidence for Random Mutation and Natural Selection - Casey Luskin - September 29, 2011

But Isn't There a Consilience of Data That Corroborates Common Descent? - Casey Luskin December 2, 2010

As well, materialists never mention the fact that the variations found in nature (such as peppered moth color and finch beak size) which are often touted as solid proof of evolution are always found to be cyclical in nature. i.e. The variations are found to vary around a median position with never a continual deviation from the norm. This blatant distortion/omission of evidence led Phillip Johnson to comment in the Wall Street Journal:
"When our leading scientists have to resort to the sort of distortion that would land a stock promoter in jail, you know they are in trouble."
Phenotypic Plasticity - Lizard cecal valve (cyclical variation)- video
Lizard Plasticity - March 2013
Excerpt: So in this study, plasticity experiments were conducted. When the lizards were taken off a plant diet and returned to their native insect diet, the cecal valves in their stomachs began to revert within weeks. As the authors conclude, this pointed heavily to plasticity as a cause. We can infer that the this gut morphology likewise arose in similar fashion when coming into contact with the plant diet.
Creation/Evolution: Natural Limits to Biological Change 1/2 - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video (starts at the 13:00 minute mark of video)

Creation/Evolution: Natural Limits to Biological Change 2/2 - Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin - video

Evolution? - The Deception Of Unlimited Variation - video
An Evolutionist Just Admitted That the New Tennessee Law Does Not Introduce Creationism Into the Class Room - April 2012
Excerpt: When confronted they equivocate on evolution and redefine the idea as mere change over time. All of the many incredible examples of adaptation we observe in nature (where a population adapts to a new environmental challenge via super sophisticated biological mechanisms which evolution cannot even begin to explain) are suddenly proofs of evolution. The beaks of bird become a bit longer in response to changing conditions, and therefore all of biology must have spontaneously arose. So evolution is not only a religious theory, it also is a shell game.
Natural Limits to Variation, or Reversion to the Mean: Is Evolution Just Extrapolation by Another Name? - Tom Bethell - April, 2012
The Mirage of "Evolution Before Our Eyes" - August 2011
Excerpt:,,,the important implication of the massive study by Oregon State University zoologist Josef C. Uyeda and his colleagues. They write in PNAS: "Even though rapid, short-term evolution often occurs in intervals shorter than 1 [million years], the changes are constrained and do not accumulate over time."

New Research on Epistatic Interactions Shows "Overwhelmingly Negative" Fitness Costs and Limits to Evolution - Casey Luskin June 8, 2011
Excerpt: In essence, these studies found that there is a fitness cost to becoming more fit. As mutations increase, bacteria faced barriers to the amount they could continue to evolve. If this kind of evidence doesn't run counter to claims that neo-Darwinian evolution can evolve fundamentally new types of organisms and produce the astonishing diversity we observe in life, what does?
Many times a materialist will parade examples of reproductive isolation between close sub-species (Horse & Donkey; Various Insects; etc.. etc..) as proof for evolution. Yet, the evidence of population genetics indicates the information for variation was already 'programmed' into the parent species’s genetic code, and the sub-species, or what is known as pure breed in animal husbandry, becomes devoid of much of the variety that was present in the genetic code of the parent species. In fact, the entire spectrum of dog sub-species has been found to have less genetic diversity than the parent wolf species:
,,the mean sequence divergence in dogs, 2.06, was almost identical to the 2.10 (sequence divergence) found within wolves. (please note the sequence divergence is slightly smaller for the entire spectrum of dogs than for wolves)

Genetic Evidence for an East Asian Origin of Domestic Dogs
Abstract: The origin of the domestic dog from wolves has been established, but the number of founding events, as well as where and when these occurred, is not known. To address these questions, we examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequence variation among 654 domestic dogs representing all major dog populations worldwide. Although our data indicate several maternal origins from wolf, >95% of all sequences belonged to three phylogenetic groups universally represented at similar frequencies, suggesting a common origin from a single gene pool for all dog populations. A larger genetic variation in East Asia than in other regions and the pattern of phylogeographic variation suggest an East Asian origin for the domestic dog, ∼15,000 years ago.

Genome sequencing highlights the dynamic early history of Dogs - January 2014
Excerpt Discussion: We provide several lines of evidence supporting a single origin for dogs, and disfavoring alternative models in which dog lineages arise separately from geographically distinct wolf populations (Figures 4–5, Table S10),,
Our analysis suggests that none of the sampled wolf populations is more closely related to dogs than any of the others, and that dogs diverged from wolves at about the same time that the sampled wolf populations diverged from each other (Figures 5A, 5C).

Caveman’s Best Friend, Evolution’s Newest Upset - October 2011
Excerpt: Our view of domestication as a process has also begun to change, with recent research showing that, in dogs, alterations in only a small number of genes can have large effects in terms of size, shape and behavior.,,, It should be noted that dogs and wolves can interbreed,,,

podcast - On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin talks with geneticist Dr. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig about his recent article on the evolution of dogs. Casey and Dr. Lönnig evaluate the claim that dogs somehow demonstrate macroevolution.
Part 2: Dog Breeds: Proof of Macroevolution?
In fact, Natural Selection (and Artificial Selection as in dog breeding), though repeatedly invoked by Darwinists as this 'great creative engine' for evolution that knows no bounds to its power, in reality, away from the Darwinian rhetoric and imagination, actually consistently reduces the genetic information of organisms. In fact, inbreeding (Artificial Selection) is a very big problem in 'Prue Breds' that must be carefully guarded against in animal husbandry since it promotes genetic degradation:
Interview with Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig - Mar 22, 2014
Excerpt: Richard Dawkins and many other evolutionary biologists (claim) that dog breeds prove macroevolution. However, virtually all the dog breeds are generated by losses or disturbances of gene functions and/or developmental processes. Moreover, all the three subfamilies of the family of wild dogs (Canidae) appear abruptly in the fossil record.

Inbreeding - Pros and cons
Excerpt: The ultimate result of continued inbreeding is terminal lack of vigor and probable extinction as the gene pool contracts, fertility decreases, abnormalities increase and mortality rates rise.

100 Years of Breed “Improvement” – Comparison photos of Pure Breds from 100 years ago to today – Sept. 2012
Excerpt: "Several "pure bred" dogs are now so incredibly inbred they have many genetic problems that severely reduce their quality of life." The dogs on the left are from the 1915 book, ‘Breeds of All Nations‘ by W.E. Mason. The examples on the right are modern examples from multiple sources (which show the progressive genetic deterioration of the pure breds).
Falsification of Natural Selection (Natural Selection is a eliminative force, not a generative force)

Besides Darwinists being severely misleading as to the fact that Natural Selection actually reduces genetic information instead of ever creating anything 'new', these following studies reveal the fact that Darwinian evolution cannot even account for the fact a parent species/kind will have a more 'robust genome' than its sub-species. A more robust genome that was 'designed' to 'rapidly radiate' in a 'top down' fashion, instead gradually differentiate in a 'bottom up' fashion.
Single male and female sheep maintain genetic diversity.
A mouflon population (considered an ancient "parent" lineage of sheep), bred over dozens of generations from a single male and female pair transplanted to Haute Island from a Parisian zoo, has maintained the genetic diversity of its founding parents.This finding challenges the widely accepted theory of genetic drift, which states the genetic diversity of an inbred population will decrease over time. "What is amazing is that models of genetic drift predict the genetic diversity of these animals should have been lost over time, but we've found that it has been maintained,"
Dr. David Coltman, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Alberta

Allozyme evidence for crane systematics and polymorphisms within populations of sandhill, sarus, Siberian and whooping cranes.
"This is contrary to expectations of genetic loss due to a population bottleneck of some 15 individuals in the 1940s. The possibility should be explored that some mechanism exists for rapidly restoring genetic variability after population bottlenecks."
Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution 1:279-288- Dessauer, H. C., G. F. Gee, and J. S. Rogers. 1992.
The following studies show that polar bears evolved (sub-speciated) rapidly from brown bears. As well the studies show that the sub-speciation came at a cost of genetic diversity that was originally present in brown bears, thus also conforming to the principle of genetic entropy:

Coffee!!: Why are polar bears white?
Polar bears and mammalian speciation – May 2010
Excerpt: “Recent genetic studies have shown that polar bears evolved from within brown bears, and that a genetically unique clade of brown bear populations that live exclusively on the Admiralty, Baranof, and Chichagof (ABC) islands of southeastern Alaska’s Alexander Archipelago are more closely related to polar bears than to other brown bears.” “The stable isotope data, phylogenetic analysis, and the geological and molecular age estimates of the Poolepynten specimen indicate that ancient polar bears adapted extremely rapidly both morphologically and physiologically to their current and unique ecology within only 10-30 ky following their split from a brown bear precursor,,,
Thus we are warranted to postulate some epigentic, ‘evironmental clue’, mechanism as for the 'extremely' rapid adaptation. Yet it must be kept in mind that even though the speciation from brown bears was rapid, that the speciation also came at a cost of the genetic information that was already present in the brown bear population:
Genetics – Polar Bear
Excerpt: microsatellite data that can be compared suggest there may be less genetic variation among populations of polar bears than among populations of black bears and brown bears (Paetkau et al. 1995, 1999). Paetkau et al. (1999) also found genetic distances among polar bear populations were at the lower extreme of the distances reported for the gray wolf (Canus lupus), another widely distributed carnivore.

Evidence from patterns in mtDNA also may hint at somewhat less genetic variation among polar bear populations than among populations of other bears. Cronin et al. (1991) reported only one basic polar bear mtDNA lineage, whereas black and brown bears each have two very divergent lineages. The older species (black and brown bears) appear to have more genetic variation across their ranges than the more recently derived polar bears.

Greater morphological variation among populations of brown bears (e.g., very large individuals, such as those living on Kodiak Island and coastal Alaska, vs. smaller interior or arctic bears) also appears to reflect more genetic variation than is present among polar bears
(Stirling and Derocher 1990; Talbot and Shields 1996a, 1996b).
Morphological variation among polar bears is minimal throughout their range. Paetkau et al. (1999)
Of related note on Polar Bears:
(Design of) Fur and Feathers Keep Animals Warm by Scattering Light - Jan. 23, 2014
Excerpt: Priscilla Simonis,, was intrigued by the ability of polar bears to insulate their bodies to temperatures of 37 degrees Celsius (98.6 F) even during long, cold winters when outside temperatures are a frigid -40 C (-40 F). The feat was especially impressive given that the bears have a layer of fur that is only 5 centimeters thick.,,,
Most people assume that fur and feathers keep animals warm primarily by trapping a layer of air that slows thermal conduction, says Simonis. But she and her colleagues suspected that radiation might play a bigger role.,,,
Simonis and her colleagues found that as the reflectivity of the radiative shields increased, the rate of heat transfer between the hot and cold thermostat was dramatically reduced. Adding more shields also dramatically reduced the energy loss. All together, the model suggests that the repeated backscattering of infrared light between radiative shields, like individual hairs and barbed feathers, could be the primary mechanism for the thermal insulation properties of fur and feathers.
The light scattering properties of animals' coats can also have dual purposes, Simonis notes. With the right structure, fur and feathers can generate efficient thermal insulation in the far infrared range while also scattering visible light to produce a white appearance in the visible wavelength range. "This is particularly useful to animals, such as mammals and birds, that live in snowy areas," Simonis says, as it provides them with both warmth and camouflage against the white snow.
These following studies and video, on Cichlid fishes, are evidence of the 'limited and rapid variation from a parent kind' predicted by the Genetic Entropy model:
African cichlid fish: a model system in adaptive radiation research:
"The African cichlid fish radiations are the most diverse extant animal radiations and provide a unique system to test predictions of speciation and adaptive radiation theory(of evolution).----(surprising implication of the study?)---- the propensity to radiate was significantly higher in lineages whose precursors emerged from more ancient adaptive radiations than in other lineages"

Multiple Genes Permit Closely Related Fish Species To Mix And Match Their Color Vision - Oct. 2005
Excerpt: In the new work, the researchers performed physiological and molecular genetic analyses of color vision in cichlid fish from Lake Malawi and demonstrated that differences in color vision between closely related species arise from individual species’ using different subsets of distinct visual pigments.
Cichlid Fish - Evolution or Variation Within Kind? - Dr. Arthur Jones - video
"For all the diversity of species, I found the cichlids to be an unmistakably natural group, a created kind. The more I worked with these fish the clearer my recognition of “cichlidness” became and the more distinct they seemed from all the “similar” fishes I studied. Conversations at conferences and literature searches confirmed that this was the common experience of experts in every area of systematic biology. Distinct kinds really are there and the experts know it to be so. – On a wider canvas, fossils provided no comfort to evolutionists. All fish, living and fossil, belong to distinct kinds; “links” are decidedly missing."
Dr. Arthur Jones - did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids
What is Speciation? (Cichlids) - July 2012 - podcast

Of related note:
Research on stickleback fish shows how adaptation to new environments involves many genes - April 2012
Excerpt: A current controversy raging in evolutionary biology is whether adaptation to new environments is the result of many genes, each of relatively small effect, or just a few genes of large effect. A new study published in Molecular Ecology strongly supports the first "many-small" hypothesis.,, "I suspect that as more and more studies use these methods, the tide of opinion will swerve strongly to the view that adaptation is a complex process that involves many genes spread across diverse places in the genome," says Prof. Hendry.

Children of the Corn: A Reader Objects - April 2012
Excerpt: As John Doebley put the point in 2004, "The critical genetic variants involved in maize evolution were pre-existing in teosinte populations" (p. 46).

Supergerms—do they prove evolution? by Rev. Roger Kovaciny
Excerpt: Supergerms are not supergerms any more than hybrid corn is supercorn—today’s hybrids are so delicate that they can’t even sprout unless they are planted underground. They can’t even grow effectively unless the ground is weeded. They can’t even reproduce unless technicians at seed-houses mate them artificially and with great effort.
More evidence for rapid radiations from a parent species can be found here:
Biological Variation - Cornelius Hunter
Excerpt: One hint that biology would not cooperate with Darwin’s theory came from the many examples of rapidly adapting populations. What evolutionists thought would require thousands or millions of years has been observed in laboratories and in the field, in an evolutionary blink of an eye.

Evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits without positive Darwinian selection - A L Hughes - November 2011
Recent evidence suggests the frequent occurrence of a simple non-Darwinian (but non-Lamarckian) model for the evolution of adaptive phenotypic traits, here entitled the plasticity–relaxation–mutation (PRM) mechanism. This mechanism involves ancestral phenotypic plasticity followed by specialization in one alternative environment and thus the permanent expression of one alternative phenotype. Once this specialization occurs, purifying selection on the molecular basis of other phenotypes is relaxed. Finally, mutations that permanently eliminate the pathways leading to alternative phenotypes can be fixed by genetic drift. Although the generality of the PRM mechanism is at present unknown, I discuss evidence for its widespread occurrence, including the prevalence of exaptations in evolution, evidence that phenotypic plasticity has preceded adaptation in a number of taxa and evidence that adaptive traits have resulted from loss of alternative developmental pathways. The PRM mechanism can easily explain cases of explosive adaptive radiation,
A non-Darwinian process of epigenetic modification has now been implicated in the rapid variation of domesticated chickens:
Epigenetics: Swedish researchers say Darwinism is NOT the cause of wide variation in domestic chicken types
Excerpt: Since methylation is a much faster process than random mutations, and may occur as a result of stress and other experiences, this may explain how variation within a species can increase so dramatically in just a short time.
Materialists may have trouble explaining such evidence for 'robust and rapidly adapting genomes' from ancient parent lineages, but Genetic Entropy holds ancient parent lineages will always have a more robust genome than their sub-species. This is readily demonstrated by the rampant problems of inbreeding among "sub-species", witnessed throughout animal husbandry.

It is interesting to note that many times evolutionists will try to use the highly choreographed mutation/selection process of the immune system itself, claiming that the brilliantly designed immune system is actually proof of evolution. Yet the immune system is almost exactly what we have with the evolutionists claims for 'evolutionary algorithms' in that the immune system is carefully designed from the outset to converge on a solution. It would be surprising, and deadly, if the immune system did not do exactly what it was 'designed' to do:
Falk’s fallacy - Feb. 2010
Excerpt: This (the immune system) is one of the most amazing processes ever described.,,, Whatever may be said about it, it is a highly regulated, specified, directed and choreographed process. It is obviously the product of overwhelmingly brilliant design,,,

Response to Kathryn Applegate - Caroline Crocker PhD.- cell biologist and immunologist - October 2010
Excerpt: Diversity of antibodies generated by B cells is due to deliberate, cell-engineered changes in the DNA sequence, not random mutations. In fact, I have never before heard the process whereby functional antibodies are formed (before they encounter antigen) described as mutation. And it is well-known that the appearance of functionality as a result of a mistake-mutation is extremely rare. Of course, after encountering antigen the hypervariable regions of the antibody DNA do undergo somatic hypermutation, but again this is in particular places and is controlled by enzymes.,,,

Generation of Antibody Diversity is Unlike Darwinian Evolution - microbiologist Don Ewert - November 2010
Excerpt: The evidence from decades of research reveals a complex network of highly regulated processes of gene expression that leave very little to chance, but permit the generation of receptor diversity without damaging the function of the immunoglobulin protein or doing damage to other sites in the genome.

Evolutionists Are Now Saying That Evolution Created an Optimized Evolutionary Process (For Immunity System) - Cornelius Hunter - July 2012
Excerpt: This type of problem, known as the calculus of variations, is important in many engineering problems.
It also applies to our immune system. About ten years ago researchers used Pontryagin’s maximum principle—an important concept in engineering control theory involving the calculus of variations—to predict how our immune system works.
"A Masterful Feat of Courtroom Deception": Immunologist Donald Ewert on Dover Trial - audio

In this following podcast, Casey Luskin interviews microbiologist and immunologist Donald Ewert about his previous work as associate editor for the journal Development and Comparitive Immunology, where he realized that the papers published were comparative studies that had nothing to do with evolution at all.

What Does Evolution Have to Do With Immunology? Not Much - April 2011

The Cell Secret Immune System - BBC video

Irreducible complexity meets multifunctionality:
Immune system molecule with hidden talents - January 22, 2013
Excerpt: The human immune system is made up of some half a dozen different cell types that are all working in tandem. Team work is key since each cell type has a single unique job to perform, which is central to its ability to help defend the body against invaders and ward off disease. If one of these players is taken out of commission, the entire system is thrown out of whack.
This is precisely what Dr. Siegfried Weiss, head of HZI Department of Molecular Immunology, and his team of researchers observed when they looked at immunodeficient mice. "Our 'RAG' mice are lacking adaptive, or acquired immunity," explains Weiss. "Basically, what this means is they are missing their antibody-producing B cells, among others."
The dendritic cells belong to a different branch of the immune system - innate immunity, which, although far less pliable, is capable of a fairly rapid response. Which is why these cells should not be affected by a defect in acquired immunity. Still, the scientists noticed that DCs obtained from this particular murine strain were not working properly - their maturation process was faulty and instead of breaking down a pathogen into small pieces, they ended up destroying the pathogen altogether.,,,,
"We had no idea that B cells and dendritic cells use immunoglobulins to communicate with each other. It just goes to show you how complex the immune system really is and how we are a long way from truly grasping the full scope of its complexity,"
Of related note: Immunity bacteria are shown to be species specific (Regardless of the surprising result, Darwinists still insist evolution did it.)
Our Microbes, Ourselves: Billions of Bacteria Within, Essential for Immune Function, Are Ours Alone - ScienceDaily (June 21, 2012)
Excerpt: Chung repeated the experiment, only this time populating a third group of mice with microbes common to rats. This new group showed the same immune system deficiency as the humanized mice. "I was very surprised to see that," Chung said. "Naturally, I would have expected more of a half-way response."
Of note: Glycan carbohydrate molecules are very complex molecules, rivaling DNA and proteins in terms of complexity, which are found primarily on a cell's surface and are found to be very important for cell surface functions, such as immunity responses, and are found to show “remarkably discontinuous distribution across evolutionary lineages,”;

Glycan Carbohydrate Molecules - A Whole New Level Of Information - article

The deception (literature bluff), from neo-Darwinists at Dover, did not stop with immunology;

The NCSE, Judge Jones, and Bluffs About the Origin of New Functional Genetic Information – Casey Luskin – March 2010

The Dover trial - The Untold Story of the Kitzmiller Trial, by the Foundation for Thought and Ethics

As well, the primary piece of evidence, at the Dover trial, trying to establish chimp human ancestry from SNP (Single Nuecleotide Polymorphism) evidence was overturned:

Dover Revisited: With Beta-Globin Pseudogene Now Found to Be Functional, an Icon of the “Junk DNA” Argument Bites the Dust - Casey Luskin - April 23, 2013

Besides Dover, it seems that Darwinists have a bit of a problem as to literature bluffing in general when it comes to demonstrating the origin of functional information by purely Darwinian processes:

Assessing the NCSE’s Citation Bluffs on the Evolution of New Genetic Information – Feb. 2010

How to Play the Gene Evolution Game – Casey Luskin – Feb. 2010

Intelligent Design and the Origin of Biological Information: A Response to Dennis Venema By: Casey Luskin - October 3, 2011

Responding to Venema’s Response to Meyer’s Response to Venema’s Response to Meyer’s Signature in the Cell: The Last in a Series (We Promise!) - Casey Luskin - October 22, 2011
Leading Darwin Defender Admits Darwinism’s Most “Detailed Explanation” of a Gene Doesn’t Even Tell What Function’s Being Selected – Casey Luskin – October 5, 2011
Excerpt: …You just admitted that the most “detailed explanation” for the evolution of a gene represents a case where:

*they don’t even know the precise function of the gene,
*and thus don’t know what exactly what function was being selected,
*and thus don’t know if there are steps that require multiple mutations to produce an advantage,
*and thus haven’t even begun to show that the gene can evolve in a step-by-step fashion,
*and thus don’t know that there are sufficient probabilistic resources to produce the gene by gene duplication+mutation+selection.

In effect, you have just admitted that Darwinian explanations for the origin of genes are incredibly detail-poor.
The main evidences used by Darwinists for claiming that material processes can generate genetic information are thoroughly refuted in the following article:

Hopeless Matzke -David Berlinski & Tyler Hampton August 18, 2013
Does Natural Selection Leave "Detectable Statistical Evidence in the Genome"? More Problems with Matzke's Critique of Darwin's Doubt - Casey Luskin August 7, 2013
Excerpt: A critical review of these statistical methods has shown that their theoretical foundation is not well established and they often give false-positive and false-negative results.
Nick Matzke, the leading Darwin Defender in the previous articles, tried to pull another literature bluff on the Cambrian Explosion here:

Calling Nick Matzke’s Bluff - June 21, 2013

Moreover, the opinion of judge John E. Jones III at Dover was not authored by the judge at all, but was plagiarized from a ACLU attorney.

The Plagiarism of Judge John E. Jones III - Michael J. Behe, PhD

Anybody who has debated Darwinists on the internet has probably been 'bombed' by a TalkOrigins FAQ. This podcast reveals the bankruptcy of the actual evidence behind these FAQs and reveals that they are nothing more than literature bluffs;

Talk Origins Full of Claims but Short on Real Evidence - Casey Luskin - podcast - February 2012

Here is part 2 of the podcast

Talk Origins Speciation FAQ, pt. 2: Lack of Evidence for Big Claims - Casey Luskin - February 2012

Creation Wiki responses to Talk Origins website:

Materialists like to claim evolution is indispensable to experimental biology and led the way to many breakthroughs in medicine, Yet in a article entitled "Evolutionary theory contributes little to experimental biology", this expert author begs to differ.
"Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World War II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.,,, In the peer-reviewed literature, the word "evolution" often occurs as a sort of coda to academic papers in experimental biology. Is the term integral or superfluous to the substance of these papers? To find out, I substituted for "evolution" some other word – "Buddhism," "Aztec cosmology," or even "creationism." I found that the substitution never touched the paper's core. This did not surprise me. From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology."
Philip S. Skell - (the late) Emeritus Evan Pugh Professor at Pennsylvania State University, and a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

"In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, and physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all."
Marc Kirschner, Boston Globe, Oct. 23, 2005

"While the great majority of biologists would probably agree with Theodosius Dobzhansky’s dictum that “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution”, most can conduct their work quite happily without particular reference to evolutionary ideas. Evolution would appear to be the indispensable unifying idea and, at the same time, a highly superflous one.”
A.S. Wilkins, editor of the journal BioEssays, Introduction to "Evolutionary Processes" - (2000).

"Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved. It might be thought, therefore, that evolutionary arguments would play a large part in guiding biological research, but this is far from the case. It is difficult enough to study what is happening now. To figure out exactly what happened in evolution is even more difficult. Thus evolutionary achievements can be used as hints to suggest possible lines of research, but it is highly dangerous to trust them too much. It is all too easy to make mistaken inferences unless the process involved is already very well understood."
Francis Crick - What Mad Pursuit (1988)
At the 7:00 minute mark of this following video, Dr. Behe gives an example of how positive evidence is falsely attributed to evolution by using the word 'evolution' as a sort of coda in peer-reviewed literature:

Michael Behe - Life Reeks Of Design - video

Podcasts and Article of Dr. Skell

Evolution (Not) Crucial in Antibiotics Breakthrough: How Science is Actually Done - Cornelius Hunter - Sept. 2012

Evolution Rarely the Basis of Research: Nature's "Evolutionary Gems" Just Narrative Gloss - podcast

Where are the Scientific Breakthroughs Due to Evolution? - video

Science Owes Nothing To Darwinian Evolution - Jonathan Wells - video
Anti-Science Irony
Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”.
When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.

An Early Critique of Darwin Warned of a Lower Grade of Degradation - Cornelius Hunter - Dec. 22, 2012
Excerpt: "Many of your wide conclusions are based upon assumptions which can neither be proved nor disproved. Why then express them in the language & arrangements of philosophical induction?" (Sedgwick to Darwin - 1859),,,
And anticipating the fixity-of-species strawman, Sedgwick explained to the Sage of Kent (Darwin) that he had conflated the observable fact of change of time (development) with the explanation of how it came about. Everyone agreed on development, but the key question of its causes and mechanisms remained. Darwin had used the former as a sort of proof of a particular explanation for the latter. “We all admit development as a fact of history;” explained Sedgwick, “but how came it about?”,,,
For Darwin, warned Sedgwick, had made claims well beyond the limits of science. Darwin issued truths that were not likely ever to be found anywhere “but in the fertile womb of man’s imagination.”
The fertile womb of man’s imagination. What a cogent summary of evolutionary theory. Sedgwick made more correct predictions in his short letter than all the volumes of evolutionary literature to come.
Here is the letter from Adam Sedgwick to Charles Darwin:
Sedgwick, Adam to Darwin - 24 Nov 1859
Excerpt: There is a moral or metaphysical part of nature as well as a physical. A man who denies this is deep in the mire of folly.,,
And exactly where Darwinism fails to have any rational basis in science, (“how came it about?” – Sedgwick), is precisely where Intelligent Design does have a solid basis:

Stephen Meyer – The Scientific Basis Of Intelligent Design – video

200 Years After Darwin - What Darwin Didn’t Know - Jonathan Wells - Simmons - Doug Axe - video

Darwinian Medicine and Proximate and Evolutionary Explanations - Michael Egnor - neurosurgeon - June 2011

Intelligent Design and Medical Research - video
Animal Testing Is Bad Science: Point/Counterpoint
Excerpt: The only reason people are under the misconception that animal experiments help humans is because the media, experimenters, universities and lobbying groups exaggerate the potential of animal experiments to lead to new cures and the role they have played in past medical advances.,,,
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has noted that 92 percent of all drugs that are shown to be safe and effective in animal tests fail in human trials because they don’t work or are dangerous.,,,
Physiological reactions to drugs vary enormously from species to species. Penicillin kills guinea pigs but is inactive in rabbits; aspirin kills cats and causes birth defects in rats, mice, guinea pigs, dogs, and monkeys; and morphine, a depressant in humans, stimulates goats, cats, and horses.

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? – Mouse Models
Excerpt: A recent scientific paper showed that all 150 drugs tested at the cost of billions of dollars in human trials of sepsis failed because the drugs had been developed using mice. Unfortunately, what looks like sepsis in mice turned out to be very different than what sepsis is in humans. Coverage of this study by Gina Kolata in the New York Times incited a heated response from within the biomedical research community.
AZRA RAZA – Professor of medicine and director of the MDS Centre, Columbia University, New York
In fact, as to the somewhat minor extent evolutionary reasoning has influenced medical diagnostics, it has led to much ‘medical malpractice’ in the past:
Evolution's "vestigial organ" argument debunked
Excerpt: "The appendix, like the once 'vestigial' tonsils and adenoids, is a lymphoid organ (part of the body's immune system) which makes antibodies against infections in the digestive system. Believing it to be a useless evolutionary 'left over,' many surgeons once removed even the healthy appendix whenever they were in the abdominal cavity. Today, removal of a healthy appendix under most circumstances would be considered medical malpractice" (David Menton, Ph.D., "The Human Tail, and Other Tales of Evolution," St. Louis MetroVoice , January 1994, Vol. 4, No. 1).
"Doctors once thought tonsils were simply useless evolutionary leftovers and took them out thinking that it could do no harm. Today there is considerable evidence that there are more troubles in the upper respiratory tract after tonsil removal than before, and doctors generally agree that simple enlargement of tonsils is hardly an indication for surgery" (J.D. Ratcliff, Your Body and How it Works, 1975, p. 137).
The tailbone, properly known as the coccyx, is another supposed example of a vestigial structure that has been found to have a valuable function—especially regarding the ability to sit comfortably. Many people who have had this bone removed have great difficulty sitting.
Neo-Darwinism’s negative effect on science and society

Whereas Intelligent Design, contrary to what many evolutionists will say publicly, does in fact make solid predictions for science that we can test. Testable Predictions for ID as they match up to what the scientific evidence is now telling us starts at the 15:23 minute mark of the following video:

Scientific Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - video (sound clears up at the 5:00 minute mark) - Oct. 2013
A Response to Questions from a Biology Teacher: How Do We Test Intelligent Design? - March 2010
Excerpt: Regarding testability, ID (Intelligent Design) makes the following testable predictions:
(1) Natural structures will be found that contain many parts arranged in intricate patterns that perform a specific function (e.g. complex and specified information).
(2) Forms containing large amounts of novel information will appear in the fossil record suddenly and without similar precursors.
(3) Convergence will occur routinely. That is, genes and other functional parts will be re-used in different and unrelated organisms.
(4) Much so-called “junk DNA” will turn out to perform valuable functions.
A Positive, Testable Case for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - March 2011 - several examples of cited research

In the last part of this following audio, Casey Luskin lays the evidence out for a Professor of evolution, who had the audacity to challenge his students to come up with 'ANY' evidence for Intelligent Design:

Evidence for Intelligent Design - Casey Luskin - July 2010

I found this following paper particularly interesting for broadly outlining how evolution misses the mark for a true science and is, in reality, a pseudo-science:
Is evolution pseudoscience?
Excerpt:,,, Thus, of the ten characteristics of pseudoscience listed in the Skeptic’s Dictionary, evolution meets nine. Few other pseudosciences - astrology, astral projection, alien abduction, crystal power, or whatever — would meet so many.

Darwinian Evolution is a Pseudo-Science - Part II

Theory? Is "the theory of evolution" a theory in the same sense as the "theory of gravitation"? They are not.
1.Physics theories are generally compact and mathematical. Evolution has no compact set of equations, in fact no equations at all.
2.One can deduce very specific and precise predictions from physics theories. Evolution's predictions are nowhere near so specific.
3.Physics theories' predictions may be tested experimentally to high mathematical precision. Evolution's predictions are more general, and don't lend themselves to precise testing.

"Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought."
~ Cornelius Hunter

“In science's pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to phrenology than to physics. For evolutionary biology is a historical science, laden with history's inevitable imponderables. We evolutionary biologists cannot generate a Cretaceous Park to observe exactly what killed the dinosaurs; and, unlike "harder" scientists, we usually cannot resolve issues with a simple experiment, such as adding tube A to tube B and noting the color of the mixture.”
- Jerry A. Coyne – Of Vice and Men, The New Republic, April 3, 2000 p.27 - professor of Darwinian evolution at the University of Chicago

"nobody to date has yet found a demarcation criterion according to which Darwin(ism) can be described as scientific" - Imre Lakatos (November 9, 1922 – February 2, 1974) a philosopher of mathematics and science, quote was as stated in 1973 LSE Scientific Method Lecture
Science and Pseudoscience - Imre Lakatos - exposing Darwinism as a ‘degenerating science program’, as a pseudoscience, using Lakatos's rigid criteria
C.S. Lewis: creationist and anti-evolutionist
Excerpt: "In 1951 C S Lewis wrote that evolution was “the central and radical lie in the whole web of falsehood that now governs our lives” and modern civilization. Evolution, Lewis explained, is a picture of reality that has resulted from imagination and is “not the logical result of what is vaguely called ‘modern science’.”

Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Complex systems in biology overwhelmingly point to an intelligent origin of living beings - Mar 22, 2014
Excerpt: the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.“
,,, “As I myself had to experience [that] (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances?“
Also of interest is that neo-Darwinists now have a fairly long legal history of trying to suppress free speech in the courts of America of anyone who opposes their view:
On the Fundamental Difference Between Darwin-Inspired and Intelligent Design-Inspired Lawsuits - September 2011
Excerpt: *Darwin lobby litigation: In every Darwin-inspired case listed above, the Darwin lobby sought to shut down free speech, stopping people from talking about non-evolutionary views, and seeking to restrict freedom of intellectual inquiry.
*ID movement litigation: Seeks to expand intellectual inquiry and free speech rights to talk about non-evolutionary views.

'If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.' -
Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis - 1927

"Evolution is the only 'scientific theory' that needs laws to protect it!"
Author Unknown
A lot of people are concerned about the constitutionality of teaching evidence against evolution in public schools because of the first admendment. The following article by Casey Luskin, who has a law degree, reveals that it is constitutional to teach evidence against evolution in public schools:

Is It Legally Consistent for Darwin Lobbyists to Oppose Advocating, But Advocate Opposing, Intelligent Design in Public Schools? - August 2010
Excerpt: But each time we present a theory of life's origin to our schoolchildren, we are showing preference. And by actually looking at the theories and what they represent, as well as looking at what religion provides for people, we can see that the government, even in limiting the teaching to only evolution, is endorsing a religious ideology. A message exists behind this endorsement - the same message people feared would exist if we allowed schools to teach biblical creationism theories or even intelligent design theory. The message itself is an endorsement. Accordingly, the government is endorsing a particular religious belief - the belief that no supernatural being exists. In effect, this endorsement not only advances that particular religious belief and inhibits other religious beliefs, but also it shows an utter failure of maintaining the government's requisite neutrality involving religion and the government.

This following, excellent, article by Casey Luskin has many references defending ID from both a evidential, and legal, point of view from a pretty nasty 'smear article' written by some Darwinist professors at SMU (Southern Methodist University):

Responding to John Wise's Table Pounding at Southern Methodist University - October 2010

In fact, Intelligent Design has a few legal victories testifying to the fact that it is 'still' legal in America to present evidence contrary to what the Darwinian consensus maintains:
Journal Apologizes and Pays $10,000 After Censoring Article - Granville Sewell episode - June 2011

California Science Center to Pay Attorneys' Fees and Settle Open Records Lawsuit by Intelligent Design Group - Robert Crowther - June 14, 2010

In fact, contrary to popular opinion, the term 'separation of church and state' does not appear anywhere in the constitution, especially in the first amendment:
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
i.e. The first amendment seeks to protect the church from the government's influence, and does not seek to protect the government from the church's influence! Moreover the term 'separation of church and state' is a fallacy that has been added on, fairly recently, by liberal Judges who are termed 'constitutional revisionists'. i.e. These Justices seek to remake the constitution as to how they personally feel it should read instead of rightly treating the constitution as the unchanging legal foundation upon which this nation was built!

The Fallacy Of The Doctrine Of Separation of Church and State - video

Moreover, atheism is not simply a lack of belief in God, but is actually, in regards to the law and the first amendment, a full fledged religion in its own right. No less than the Supreme court has found as such:
Atheism and the Law - Matt Dillahunty
Excerpt: "... whether atheism is a 'religion' for First Amendment purposes is a somewhat different question than whether its adherents believe in a supreme being, or attend regular devotional services, or have a sacred Scripture." "Without venturing too far into the realm of the philosophical, we have suggested in the past that when a person sincerely holds beliefs dealing with issues of 'ultimate concern' that for her occupy a 'place parallel to that filled by . . . God in traditionally religious persons,' those beliefs represent her religion."
"We have already indicated that atheism may be considered, in this specialized sense, a religion. See Reed v. Great Lakes Cos., 330 F.3d 931, 934 (7th Cir. 2003) ('If we think of religion as taking a position on divinity, then atheism is indeed a form of religion.')"
"The Supreme Court has recognized atheism as equivalent to a 'religion' for purposes of the First Amendment on numerous occasions"

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
Excerpt: Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality,,, Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse - Prominent Atheistic Philosopher

Darwin’s Frog Defies Evolution - July 5, 2013
Excerpt: Lynn Margulis in an interview with Mazur pronounced,
"neo-Darwinists are a… religious sect within the sprawling religious persuasion of Anglo-Saxon Biology."
Atheist Churches, Nonbeliever Gathering Places, Increase in US - 12 Nov 2013
Talking Evolution With Evolutionists - Cornelius Hunter - December 2011
Excerpt: "Like the cultist I spoke with, evolutionists are certain even though the facts do not support such certainty.,,," "You can present the facts, you can walk through the logic, you can review the experiments, and you can tally up the findings. It doesn’t matter. It never did matter because, ultimately, evolution never was about the science."
Here are several examples of atheists themselves violating the establishment clause of the first amendment by openly proselytizing their own atheistic religion in the classroom:

"Proselytizing for Darwin's God in the Classroom" (from 2008): John G. West - video

Intelligent Design's Implications Don't Discredit Its Scientific Merit: Opposing Views, Part 3 - (Several Quotes from secular humanists (atheists) who support Darwinism) - podcast

Zeal for Darwin's House Consumes Them - podcast
On this episode of ID the Future, Casey Luskin examines how, contrary to the stereotype, it's actually the atheistic supporters of evolution who encourage violations of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. This podcast is excerpted from a law review article published in Liberty University Law Review. (Linked at site)

I think Michael Behe does an excellent job, in this following debate, of pointing out that denying the overwhelming evidence for design in biology makes the science of biology ‘irrational’. As well Dr. Behe makes it clear that materialistic evolutionists themselves, by their own admission in many cases, are promoting their very own religious viewpoint, Atheism, in public schools, and thus are in fact violating the establishment clause of the constitution:

Should Intelligent Design Be Taught as Science? Michael Behe debates Stephen Barr - 2010 - video
Main page - with audio of debate

Why is a Dogmatic Belief System (Darwinism) that Fails to Explain the Evidence, Taught in Science Classes? - video

Here is an atheistic professor who openly, and unashamedly, proselytizes his atheistic religion in his classroom:

Dr. Will Provine - EXPELLED - video

Here is some helpful advise for helping students deal with such irrational hostility coming from their Darwinian teachers/professors:

Preparing Students to Intelligently Question Darwin This Fall – 2009

Even atheists themselves, who break ranks with the Darwinian ‘consensus’ party line, are severely castigated by Darwinian atheists. There was even a peer-reviewed paper in a philosophy journal by a materialist/atheist that sought to ostracize, and limit the free speech of, a fellow materialist/atheist (Jerry Fodor) who had had the audacity, in public, to dare to question the sufficiency of natural selection to be the true explanation for how all life on earth came to be.
Darwinian Philosophy: "Darwinian Natural Selection is the Only Process that could Produce the Appearance of Purpose" - Casey Luskin - August, 2012
Excerpt: In any case, this tarring and feathering of Fodor is just the latest frustrated attempt by hardline Darwinians to discourage people from using design terminology. It’s a hopeless effort, because try as they might to impose speech codes on each another, they can’t change the fact that nature is infused with purpose, which readily lends itself to, as Rosenberg calls it “teleosemantics.”

Update per Nancy Percy: The microbiologist, Kas Thomas, who wrote the article expressing doubts about Darwinian theory (posted below) is shocked, shocked that he is being vilified by Darwinists: " I am not a creationist, and yet now I know from first-hand experience what it feels like to be on the receiving end of scorn born of dogma — scientific dogma. I don’t know why it should surprise me to find there are bullies on all sides of this issue. Until now, I stupidly thought scientific minds were more tolerant and less bullying than religious thinkers. The comments here show the truth. There are closed-minded, intolerant bullies on both sides. “Bully” meaning someone who is not content to leave one well-reasoned comment, then move on; someone who has to keep leaving more and more comments, using the most vitriolic language, simply because they can’t get their way....
It’s pretty clear who the bullies are here. I must say I’m shocked at the degree of intolerance and disrespect shown in some of these comments by Darwinists, who in many cases (it turns out) are anything but open-minded, tolerant, or reasonable. The comments speak for themselves. As I say, it’s clear who the bullies are."
Here's the original article again:
As well, an esteemed Philosophy professor, who is also an atheist, suffered much the same fate as Fodor from the hands of Darwinian atheists for daring to question the sufficiency of the reductive materialism of Darwinism to account for conscious experience (the nature of which is his specific specialty of study):

The Heretic – Who is Thomas Nagel and why are so many of his fellow academics condemning him? – March 25, 2013

The Altenberg 16, a book written by Suzan Mazur, who is agnostic as far as I know, is also very good for exposing the Orwellian tactics used by Darwinists, on fellow Atheists (or anyone else), to try to keep Darwinism from every being publicly questioned:
The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry – book
Excerpt: This book takes a look at the rivalry in science today surrounding attempts to discover the elusive process of evolution. In one camp are the faithful followers of the long-standing theory of natural selection promulgated by Charles Darwin more than 150 years ago. This “survival of the fittest” theory, according to author Suzan Mazur, is no longer the scientific cornerstone of biology and has been challenged for decades. In the other camp are those challengers who want to steer evolutionary science in a more honest, scientifically accurate direction. However, the Darwinian theory has become a political powerhouse brand that is hard to unseat because of the money and power associated with it.
The Altenberg 16 is about a group of evolution scientists who met in 2008 in Austria to discuss and attempt to tell the truth about this “brand.”,,,

Evidence for Creation now banned from UK religious education classes - July 2012
Excerpt: Recently, evolutionist Suzan Mazur published a book entitled, The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry.,, The Altenberg 16 is a group of top university academics who met together at a symposium held at Altenberg in Austria in 2008. According to Mazur, these leading evolutionary scientists ‘recognize that the theory of evolution which most practicing biologists accept and which is taught in classrooms today, is inadequate in explaining our existence.’ Some of the delegates would clearly go further. According to molecular biologist, Professor Antonio Lima-de-Faria, not only is the Darwinian paradigm wrong, but it ‘actually hinders discovery of the mechanism of evolution.’ Professor Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini spoke for a number in stating simply that natural selection ‘is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated.’ Professor Jerry Fodor confessed, ‘I don’t think anybody knows how evolution works.’ If scientists can’t point to a natural process that can drive evolution, why should evolution (by force of law) be taught as science, (as a fact), in school classrooms?

Darwin's Doubt (Part 9) by Paul Giem - video - The Post Darwinian World and Self Organization
Chapter 15 and 16 of Darwin's Doubt in which (I believe) 6 alternative models to neo-Darwinism, that have been proposed by evolutionists (such as those of the Altenberg 16) to 'make up' for the inadequacy in neo-Darwinism, are discussed and the failings of each model is exposed.

Darwin's diabolical delusions - Ellis Washington - September 2011
Excerpt: Tragically, for over 150 years since the publication of Darwin's diabolical, anti-scientific book, "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life," nonpartisan science, truth, logic and deductive reasoning have been ruthlessly suppressed and replaced with state-funded Darwinist propaganda, groupthink, education atheism, liberal fascism and Machiavellian tactics as demonstrated in the Sewell case representing the ongoing battles between the Darwin Gestapo and Intelligent Design scientists.
In the midst of these Orwellian 'Big Brother' tactics, used by Darwinists to silence opposition to the theory, character assassination is one of the fairly common tactics used by neo-Darwinists, to try to undermine opposition to their theory;

Argument Ad Hominem? (William Lane Craig) - video

William Lane Craig and the Meaning of Ad Hominem Attacks - William Lane Craig - video

The Flowchart of Objections to Intelligent Design
Darwinists protesting too much (Over "Darwin's Doubt) - Telling signs of a worldview in trouble - By Subby Szterszky | July 23, 2013
Excerpt: "Their online followers echo the disrespect in even harsher tones; any rare voice of dissent in support of Meyer is promptly browbeaten into silence. The attitude is not unlike a bunch of insecure schoolyard bullies, closing ranks and reassuring each other by trading insults aimed at the uncool kid across the yard."

If Chemistry Can Be Wrong, How Much More Evolutionary Theory? January 3, 2014
Excerpt: ...In recent years, major problems have surfaced in evolutionary theory: the overthrow of "junk DNA," the discovery of codes within codes, the intransigence of the Cambrian enigma to name a few. Yet its advocates continue to bully anyone who doesn't toe the line. Darwinism acts like a religion, not science. If Darwinists were proper scientists, they would embrace the new discoveries that break their rules. They would gladly follow the mounting evidence that points in a new direction for the biology of the 21st century -- intelligent design.

She (a Journalist) said she was a creationist. Then the firestorm began. - December 27, 2013
Excerpt: Q: What adjectives would you use to describe the reaction?
Angry, defensive, fearful, histrionic, sometimes misogynistic, hazing. Something more than an academic argument about cosmology and consciousness was at stake.,,,
At the beginning of the following video Dr. Behe tells off how the president of the National Academy of Sciences sought to ostracize him for supporting Intelligent Design:

TEDxLehighU - Michael Behe - Intelligent Design - video

These are not isolated cases of intimidation, but is a general trend in Academia:
“In the last few years I have seen a saddening progression at several institutions. I have witnessed unfair treatment upon scientists that do not accept macroevolutionary arguments and for their having signed the above-referenced statement regarding the examination of Darwinism. (Dissent from Darwinism list)(I will comment no further regarding the specifics of the actions taken upon the skeptics; I love and honor my colleagues too much for that.) I never thought that science would have evolved like this. I deeply value the academy; teaching, professing and research in the university are my privileges and joys… ”
Professor James M. Tour – one of the ten most cited chemists in the world
Top Ten Most Cited Chemist in the World Knows That Evolution Doesn’t Work – James Tour, Phd. – video

Casey Luskin points out that the following anti-ID philosopher even goes so far as to publish a paper saying that the bullying tactics of neo-Darwinists are justified since many ID proponents are Christian:

Anti-ID Philosopher: "Ad hominem" Arguments "Justified" When Attacking Intelligent Design Proponents - Casey Luskin - June 4, 2012

Moreover if intimidation does not work, Darwinists many times will resort to censorship:

How the Scientific Consensus is Maintained – Granville Sewell (Professor of Mathematics University of Texas – El Paso) – video

Censorship Loses: Never Forget the Story of Biological Information: New Perspectives
Casey Luskin - August 20, 2013

ID theorist Mike Behe was refused a response in Microbe - September 22, 2013
The Letter that Science Refused to Publish - November 8, 2013
Excerpt: Stephen Meyer sought the opportunity to reply, in the pages of Science, to UC Berkeley paleontologist Charles Marshall, who reviewed Darwin's Doubt in the same publication. Without explanation, the editors refused to publish the letter. We offer it for your interest.
See more at:

Censor of the Year: Who Will It Be? - David Klinghoffer January 17, 2014
Excerpt: Charles Darwin himself, whose birthday is commemorated on the day bearing his name, insisted that getting at the truth, sorting true from false, requires an unimpeded airing of views: "A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question." Ironically, it is his latter-day advocates and defenders who are the most eager to muffle dissenting opinions, and the most unashamed about doing so. And again, not just unashamed, but proud. A victory in shutting down a college class, punishing a teacher, thwarting a law intended to protect educators from administrative reprisals, intimidating a publisher into a canceling a book contract, erasing words from the wall of a public museum -- such things are not merely done, they are candidly, brazenly bragged about.
It’s Darwin Day, and the “Censor of the Year” Poster Has Landed – February 12, 2014

As well, in regards to censorship, many times Darwinists will try to cite Wikipedia as a reliable source for information, yet the fact is that Wikipedia is not reliable as a source for information especially when it comes to the Intelligent Design/Evolution debate because of the problem of censorship within Wikipedia:
Wikipedia's Tyranny of the Unemployed - David Klinghoffer - June 24, 2012
Excerpt: PLoS One has a highly technical study out of editing patterns on Wikipedia. This is of special interest to us because Wikipedia's articles on anything to do with intelligent design are replete with errors and lies, which the online encyclopedia's volunteer editors are vigilant about maintaining against all efforts to set the record straight.
You simply can never outlast these folks. They have nothing better to do with their time and will always erase your attempted correction and reinstate the bogus claim, with lightning speed over and over again.
,,, on Wikipedia, "fact" is established by the party with the free time that's required to wear down everyone else and exhaust them into submission. The search for truth (on Wikipedia) yields to a tyranny of the unemployed.
Of related note:
Internet Trolls Really Are Horrible People - Narcissistic, Machiavellian, psychopathic, and sadistic. - By Chris Mooney - Feb. 14, 2014
Excerpt: The research,, sought to directly investigate whether people who engage in trolling are characterized by personality traits that fall in the so-called Dark Tetrad: Machiavellianism (willingness to manipulate and deceive others), narcissism (egotism and self-obsession), psychopathy (the lack of remorse and empathy), and sadism (pleasure in the suffering of others).
It is hard to underplay the results: The study found correlations, sometimes quite significant, between these traits and trolling behavior.
Even Wikipedia itself says that Wikipedia is not a credible source for information due to the fact 'anyone can edit the information given at any time' i.e. censorship:
Wikipedia: Academic use
Excerpt: Wikipedia is not considered a credible source. Wikipedia is increasingly used by people in the academic community, from freshman students to professors, as an easily accessible tertiary source for information about anything and everything. However, citation of Wikipedia in research papers may be considered unacceptable, because Wikipedia is not considered a credible or authoritative source.[1][2]
This is especially true considering anyone can edit the information given at any time.
The censorship against ID many times will even extend, past Wikipedia, down into peer review itself. The following podcast is very informative for exposing that 'systematic bias' within peer review: "The Problem With Peer-Review" - Casey Luskin - February 2012 - podcast
An Interview with David Noble - Peer Review as Censorship by SUZAN MAZUR - 2010
Excerpt: SUZAN MAZUR: I’ve been focusing on abuse inside the peer review system in recent articles for CounterPunch. The system seems to have spiraled out of control – to the extent that at the low end we now find virtual death squads on Internet blogs out to destroy scientists who have novel theories. They pretend to be battling creationism but their real job is to censor the free flow of ideas on behalf of the science establishment. The science establishment rewards bloody deeds like these by putting the chief assassin on the cover of The Humanist magazine, for example.
But you’ve written in "Regression on the Left" that the problem IS the peer review system itself. Why do you think so?
David Noble: When you say THE problem is the peer review system – the peer review system in my view is doing what it was designed to do — censor. And filter. Peer review is a system of prior censorship, prior review – prior meaning prior to publication. So the idea of abusing the peer review system sort of adds insult to injury, because the peer review system itself is injurious.,,,
Interview with Suzan Mazur, the author of "The Altenberg 16: An Exposé of the Evolution Industry" (Corruption of peer-review by big science) - video
Daniel Sarewitz: Bias is Like a Magnetic Field That Pulls Iron Filings Into Alignment - November 2012
Excerpt: to make matters worse, science’s attempts at internal controls, such as conflicts of interest disclosure, are not keeping up with the problem. Sarewitz points out that industry teams, who seek actually to implement scientific findings, are consistently unable to confirm what were thought to be “landmark” findings. As John Ioannidis has put it, “claimed research findings may often be simply accurate measures of the prevailing bias.”

The Folly of Scientism - Austin L. Hughes - Fall 2012
Excerpt: the high confidence in funding and peer-review panels should seem misplaced to anyone who has served on these panels and witnessed the extent to which preconceived notions, personal vendettas, and the like can torpedo even the best proposals. Moreover, simplistically defining science by its institutions is complicated by the ample history of scientific institutions that have been notoriously unreliable.
The Intersection of Science and Faith (Scientism and the limits to what science can know) - Craig Hazen - video
Peer Reviewed Research: The Fraud Explosion - October 6, 2012
Excerpt: “Misconduct (fraud and plagiarism) is the main cause of life-sciences retractions.”

Peer-Reviewed Pro-Intelligent Design Articles and the "Insurrection" Against Journal Impact Factors
- Casey Luskin - June 13, 2013
Excerpt: Last month the journal Science published a news article, "In 'Insurrection,' Scientists, Editors Call for Abandoning Journal Impact Factors," noting that:
"More than 150 prominent scientists and 75 scientific groups from around the world today took a stand against using impact factors, a measure of how often a journal is cited, to gauge the quality of an individual's work. They say researchers should be judged by the content of their papers, not where the studies are published."

Scientific Peer Review is in Trouble: From Medical Science to Darwinism - Mike Keas - Oct. 10, 2012
Excerpt: Peer review works best when most of the reviewers believe in at least two truths:
1. Objective moral values (like honesty) exist.
2. Human minds originated from a source that underwrites proper cognitive function aimed at discovering truth about reality.
Here lies the problem. Materialistic modernism, which has embraced Darwinism, undermines belief in the two statements above.,,,
If silencing by intimidation, or censorship, does not work, Darwinists simple 'EXPEL' anyone who disagrees with them:

EXPELLED - Starring Ben Stein - video
Slaughter of Dissidents - Book
"If folks liked Ben Stein's movie "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed," they will be blown away by "Slaughter of the Dissidents." - Russ Miller
Origins - Slaughter of the Dissidents with Dr. Jerry Bergman - video

Slaughter of the Dissidents - Dr. Jerry Bergman - June 2013 - video
Academic Freedom Under Fire — Again! - October 2010
Excerpt: All Dr. Avital wanted to do was expose students to some of the weaknesses inherent in Darwin’s theory. Surely there’s no harm in that — or so one would think. But, of course, to the Darwinian faithful, such weaknesses apparently do not exist.
Ironically, a Intelligent Design supporter was 'EXPELLED' from a civil liberties organization, which hold itself to be an organization that champions free speech:

Intelligent Design Supporter Expelled from Civil Liberties Organization - podcast - January 2013

Many times a Darwinist will appeal to a 'consensus of experts' to support their belief that evolution is true, yet this is just a smoke screen for their extremely shallow science:
Evidence against Global warming:
Excerpt: “Let’s be clear: The work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

(From a lecture delivered by the late Michael Crichton at the California Institute of Technology)
Moreover, despite the over the top black balling by Darwinists of anyone who disagrees with Darwinism, there is a consistent dissent from Darwinism by top scientists and mathematicians:

Dr. David Berlinski: Math and Darwinian Evolution - video

Scientific Dissent From Darwinism List
A Creationist Interviews Lawrence Krauss - podcast
Excerpt: - 3,000 scientists and professors, nearly, (most of whom hold a Ph.D. in some field of science) who reject secular Darwinism to varying degrees as named online by Dr. Jerry Bergman
- 30,000 U.S. public high school biology teachers do not endorse Darwinism in class
- 100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution."
- 570,000 medical doctors in the U.S., specialists in applied science, say God brought about or directly created humans. Whereas Darwinsim is dominated by storytelling, the field of medicine is an actual applied science (see definition and applied science section below) within biology that is practiced by highly educated professionals. Thus it is significant that 60% of all U.S. medical doctors reject the strictly secular Darwinist explanation for our existence, with three of five docs agreeing that either God initiated and guided the process that led to human life or that God specially created human beings as we are.
as to:
"100,000 college professors in the U.S. alone who, according to Harvard researchers, agree that "intelligent design IS a serious scientific alternative to the Darwinian theory of evolution."
In the following survey, the bottom of page 8, is the question on ID and the percentages, and page 4 gives total number of Professors in U.S. of 630,000, so the numbers actually do crunch to a bit over 100,000
I have used many peer-reviewed evidences in this paper from people who hold a Darwinian worldview. I do this partly because if you can get your opponent to make your case for you it makes your case exponentially stronger than it would be otherwise. Yet none-the-less many Darwinists say, despite the fact their own papers testify against themselves, that Intelligent Design is not really a scientific theory because it has no peer-reviewed literature of its own. Yet this common argument from Darwinists is now false for Intelligent Design does, despite the systematic bias by Darwinists to keep ID out of peer-review, indeed does now have peer-reviewed literature:

Here are some of the peer reviewed papers supporting ID that have been published in spite of the systematic bias:

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Building a Compelling Case for ID - podcast - February 2012

Evolutionary Informatics Lab - Main Publications

Bio-Complexity Publication Archive

Biological Information - New Perspectives - Proceedings of the Symposium - published online May 2013

Dr. David L. Abel (The Gene Emergence Project) - list of published papers

Why Intelligent Design Is Science: A Reading List - Casey Luskin - November 27, 2012

And even though ID finally gets past peer review, despite the systematic bias against ID, the unfair philosophical bias against ID by Darwinists still persists:

Evolutionary Anthropologist's Advice: Reject Research Papers if Results Come from Discovery Institute Authors - Casey Luskin September 3, 2013

Of related interest, Dr. Tom Woodward interviews all the leading figures of Intelligent Design - audio

The Evidence - directed mutations, consciousness etc.. etc.. video -
- Host: Dwight Wilson. Speakers: Michael Behe, Elisabet Sahtouris, Phillip Johnson, Earl Aagaard, Robert Wright, William Dembski.
More apologetic/scientific resource videos from Dwight Wilson:

Intelligent Design, despite what Darwinists may say, is supported by a vast body of evidence:
How Do We Know Intelligent Design Is a Scientific "Theory"? - Casey Luskin - October 2011
Excerpt: ID is supported by a vast body of evidence ranging from physics and cosmology to biochemistry to animal biology to systems biology to epigenetics and paleontology. ID more than exceeds the NAS's definitions of "theory."
Is Intelligent Design "Creationism in a Cheap Lab Coat"? - Casey Luskin - September 2010

Even though neo-Darwinists still like to complain that Intelligent Design advocates don't have that many published peer-reviewed papers, it turns out that if one looks at the peer-reviewed papers coming from neo-Darwinists themselves, the evidence will many times directly, and overwhelmingly, support the Intelligent Design position, while their explanation for the evidence is found to be highly contrived, and twisted, just to support their presupposed philosophical conclusion of neo-Darwinism.
This 'unscientific' bias has been present in Darwinism since its beginning:
Anti-Science Irony (Who is really anti-science?) - October 2011
Excerpt: In response to a letter from Asa Gray, professor of biology at Harvard University, Darwin declared: “I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.” Darwin was “anti-Science”.
When questioned further by Gray, Darwin confirmed Gray’s suspicions: “What you hint at generally is very, very true: that my work is grievously hypothetical, and large parts are by no means worthy of being called induction.” Darwin had turned against the use of scientific principles in developing his theory of evolution.,,, Just two weeks before the (re)lease of The Origin of Species, Erasmus Darwin, his brother, consoled him in a letter: “In fact, the a priori reasoning is so entirely satisfactory to me that if the facts [evidence] won’t fit, why so much the worse for the facts, in my feeling.”
The following is a humorous cartoon reflecting Erasmus's (and Darwinists in general) disregard for the evidence;

The Atheist Doctor (Denial of Evidence) - video
Brian Cusack’s Latest: Anti Parsimonious, Teleological, Petitio Principii, Cum Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc and Misrepresentations—Other Than That It’s Perfect - October 2011
Excerpt: ,,,evolutionists craft clever explanations that cast evolution and its natural selection in the active role of a designer. The theory sounds so much more plausible when natural selection responds to a need by creating a new design. ,, Out of one side of their mouth they rail against teleology while from the other they appeal to it over and over.

Nobel laureate physicist that you sure won’t read on a Darwin pressure group Web site
Excerpt: Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause! -
Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (New York: Basic Books, 2005), 168-69)

The Pew Forum Poll Reveals More Ignorance - December 31, 2013
Excerpt: The evidence simply does not support evolution,,, unless it is turned upside down and forced to support the theory.

“We are told dogmatically that Evolution is an established fact; but we are never told who has established it, and by what means. We are told, often enough, that the doctrine is founded upon evidence, and that indeed this evidence ‘is henceforward above all verification, as well as being immune from any subsequent contradiction by experience;’ but we are left entirely in the dark on the crucial question wherein, precisely, this evidence consists.”
Smith, Wolfgang (1988)
Teilhardism and the New Religion: A Thorough Analysis of The Teachings of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

'Just told I was ignorant and illogical (and something worse) for believing in a Creator God... So, help me with this logic, Mr. Smarty-Pants: Something from nothing; Life from non-life; Order from disorder; Rationality from randomness; Consciousness from chaos; Design from destruction; Information without intelligence... This is the enlightened "logic" on which you base your life. Rock On!'
Randall Niles - in response to a PhD 'Smarty Pants' who was sending him nasty e-mails
That this deception of materialistic Darwinian evolution should ensnare so many supposedly rational men and women is remarkable. Then again, I have also been easily misled by blatant deception many times in my life as I grew up, so maybe it is not that astonishing after all. Maybe it is just a painful, and all too human, weakness we all share which allows us to be so easily deceived by what turns out to be so clearly, and so painfully, untrue. Then again, there have always been people who refuse to listen to reason

As Aristotle did before him, in his Defense of the Divine Revelation against the Objections of the Freethinkers (atheists) the brilliant mathematician Leonhard Euler observed that there are people who are simply incapable of being reached by reason:
Excerpt: "The freethinkers (atheists) have yet to produce any objections that have not long been refuted most thoroughly. But since they are not motivated by the love of truth, and since they have an entirely different point of view, we should not be surprised that the best refutations count for nothing and that the weakest and most ridiculous reasoning, which has so often been shown to be baseless, is continuously repeated. If these people maintained the slightest rigor, the slightest taste for the truth, it would be quite easy to steer them away from their errors; but their tendency towards stubbornness makes this completely impossible."
The evidence alluded to in this paper so far has: indicated God has created this universe for life to exist in; indicated God created the earth as 'the center of this universe' for life to exist on; indicated God created the first life on earth; indicated God created all subsequent life on earth; and, indicated God created man as the last distinct species to suddenly appear on earth.
"So numberless a multitude, and so great a variety of birds, beasts, fishes, reptiles, herbs, shrubs, trees, stones, metals, minerals, stars, and everyone of them plentifully furnished and endowed with all the qualifications requisite to the attainment of the respective ends of its creation, are productions of a wisdom too limitless not to be peculiar to God: ... which do all of them deserve that extensive exclamation of the Psalmist, “How manifold are thy works, 0 Lord; in wisdom hast thou made them all.”" [Psalm 104:24]
— Robert Boyle (1627 - 1691), father of experimental chemistry
Hillsong United - Lord of Lords - music video
Isaiah 45:1
“I have made the earth and created man on it. I-My Hands-stretched out the heavens, and all their host I have commanded.”
For our final question (What evidence is found for God's personal involvement with man?) we come to evidence for God's deep personal involvement with man. The following site has the summary of evidence I have collected thus far:

Christian Apologetic webpage

No comments: