Saturday, September 24, 2022
Mitochondrial Health

Genetic Boundaries Discovered ! Evolution Theory Is Over



This video is the ultimate answer to the question of ancestry. If you are looking for UNDENIABLE evidence for separate ancestry–this is the video for you! Critics of Independent Origins and Young Earth Creation have challenged Biblical Creationists to demonstrate where a line can be drawn in ancestry. Is all life related through common ancestry? Or does the evidence better support separate ancestry (groups of creatures created independently and separate from other groups of creatures)? Those that hold to universal common ancestry would say that all animals, and all plants, should be related. The separate ancestry model would reject this. For example–Biblical Creationists would say that humans and chimpanzees do not go back to a common ancestor. This video provides overwhelming evidence that not all life is related through common ancestry. It also demonstrates how we can answer the question of what is and what isn’t related.

The answer to the very important question of ancestry features much of the original research by Team Standing For Truth.
Other people have noticed this study refutes evolution as well; https://answersingenesis.org/genetics/animal-genetics/hundreds-thousands-species-few-thousand-years/ &
https://wng.org/roundups/researchers-deny-their-work-disproves-darwin-1617226938

👉Join this channel to help promote YEC:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCNUGigqj7UMRX5RJzuVuIbg/join
👉Standing For Truth Ministries OFFICIAL Website:
https://standingfortruthministries.com/
👉Donate to the Show https://www.paypal.com/donate/?hosted_button_id=F37HHC3M4PVUQ
👉Subscribe on Facebook https://bit.ly/35PA6rZ​
👉New Kid Books Read Alouds https://tinyurl.com/z9cdaznk
👉Our books http://bit.ly/3jkHr7P​ & https://bit.ly/36SbBK0​
👉New Articles posts https://bit.ly/2UMSUSa​
👉Our MERCHANDISE https://bit.ly/35Q39f2​ a one-stop-shop for all Creationists!
Our goal is to one day do full-time ministry. Your amazing generosity, support, & donations have made us closer than ever to this dream! God bless.
We believe that the Bible is true & can be put to the test for validity. We obviously know that the Bible has parables, allegories, poems, laws, short stories, genealogy, proverbs, sermons, prayers, prophecy, proverbial text, epistles, etc. But most importantly history. What we do is test the history spoken of in the Bible with science & let the evidence speak for itself. We discovered that the evidence is in favor of Creation which just so happens to falsify evolution theory. This is why they know we are a threat & must remove Creation science from the education system at any cost.
Evolution theory is nothing but an attempt to rule out God that mixes truth with lies. Hutton’s Book “Theory of the Earth” was published in 1795, it was designed to make the population doubt the Earth was 6,000 years old. Then Lyell’s (a lawyer) book “Principles of Geology” published in 1830, was designed to make the population doubt the Flood. Even in his words, it was to “rid the science of Moses”. Then in 1859 Darwin’s book “Origin of Species” was published which made people doubt Creation. Darwin said He murdered God. He used a step by step process to use secularism as the new religion.

Message from Myself.. I once believed in Evolution like most, but after I really began to uncover the evidence all that changed. Now I am here to unveil the deception we were all told was the truth. Let me give you a few examples of how the theory has already been falsified yet remains.
Here is the evolutionary theory in action! Flip-flopping U-turning, Reinventing, & Rescue devices.
*Darwin also predicted evolution as a gradual process known today as Darwinian Gradualism. However many out of place fossils were discovered that falsified this so they invented “punctuated equilibrium” as a rescue device for when evolution speeds up real fast in a time frame that is far too short for gradual evolutionary processes. Then they found that these slow processes can not move at all as they found “living fossils”. So they invented the “stasis” rescue device. They also had a problem when the evidence showed that Darwin’s slow natural processes which was called “natura non facit saltus” meaning “nature does not make jumps” were found to make huge jumps. This was named “Saltationism” a complete contradiction. If it goes backward it’s called de-evolution, or backward evolution in biology. As you can see, they rescued their fable by inventing new hypotheses & adding them into gradualism. Another perfect example of how & why evolution is not science, but pure unfalsifiable nonsense.

source

Similar Posts

30 thoughts on “Genetic Boundaries Discovered ! Evolution Theory Is Over
  1. I find it interesting that all empirical rates of measurement point to the Bible being literal history.

    Take tree rings for example, an empirical dating method that can verify the age of a tree. This isn't an estimate. If they aren't measured via dendrochronology the dates are listed as speculative and unreliable.

    The oldest known tree based upon rings is dated at about 4,600-900 years old, this aligns perfectly with a Biblical timeframe assuming the flood wiped out all prior trees.

    And to make this even more impactful is the tree has no physiological reason to die (especially this particular type/ bristlecone pine), so if the oldest known tree is dated at 4,600-900 years old via rings, what does that tell you?

    "There is an argument that unless there’s an extremely stressful period of time or they’re struck by lightning or killed by fire, there’s not a physiological reason for these trees to die,” said Rex Adams, senior research specialist at the University of Arizona’s Laboratory of Tree Ring Research.

    Trees across the board do not die, they are killed. There is no harmful genetic pile up of mutations in trees.

    So shouldn't we find at least a few trees that break the 4,900 year mark according to their model? There's not even one. Not one. What are the odds of this?

  2. The Most High YAH even YAH is magnified and exalted
    Psalms 68:4 Sing to God, sing praises to his name: extol him that rides on the heavens by his name YAH, and rejoice before him.
    Strong's h3050

    – Lexical: יָהּ
    – Transliteration: Yah
    – Part of Speech: Proper Name
    – Phonetic Spelling: yaw
    – Definition: the name of the God of Israel.
    – Origin: Contraction for Yhovah, and meaning the same; Jah, the sacred name.
    – Usage: Jah, the Lord, most vehement. Compare names in "-iah," "- jah."
    – Translated as (count): Yah (43), of Yah (3), by Yah (1), in Yah (1).

    Christ-ian Wins

  3. This video was created to teach Creationists how to explain why genetic boundaries exist. You see, We have an evolutionary tree of life and at the very tips is where we are. If we follow those lines back we don’t intersect at all when we follow mutations back in time to a common ancestor that split into different kinds of anything living.
    If evolution were true we would see this convergence in all the different animal families connecting them to another common ancestor giving rise to the different animal families. We do not see this at all.
    That means the phylogenetic tree of life is better named the evolutionary tree of lies.
    The video teaches you multiple ways to explain the genetic boundaries that the 2018 Rockefeller University study confirmed.
    Next… Erika tried to make an argument by looking at protein-coding genes as far as relation goes.
    From a design perspective, there would seem to be no functional reason to design these proteins differently in different species. Why should the breakdown of sugars happen one way in a zebra and another way in a sheep?
    We know from laboratory experiments that some proteins can tolerate slight changes to their sequence. In some parts of the protein, substitutions of one amino acid for another do nothing to affect the chemical reaction catalyzed by the enzyme. As long as the critical amino acids remain intact, the protein functions normally.
    So Erika says, cats are 95% related looking at protein-coding genes and they are related but humans are 98% similar and are not related to chimps? How does this make sense? Well, protein “moonlighting” explains this. Rather than perform a single function in a cell, proteins perform an unexpected number of additional functions. As an illustration, some proteins that were classically thought to only catalyze a single metabolic reaction, but now appear to function in information flow as well. Conversely, the proteins encoded by mtDNA genes might also moonlight and function in additional subcellular processes.
    To date, moonlighting has not been documented for proteins encoded by mtDNA. Once these experiments have been performed, we can directly compare the predictions of the evolutionary model to the creationist one. Rather, it represents an experiment waiting to be performed. I suspect that certain key positions are highly conserved, this is why some species show more similarity than others even if not related, why others may show less similarity and be related.
    Therefore, the nested hierarchy of mtDNA differences among mammals looking at protein-coding genes doesn’t reveal anything new about species’ ancestry.You see, genetic similarity doesn’t mean relation, that is what is confusing people. One does NOT use protein-coding comparison to determine who our ancestors were, we take paternity tests to determine this which It does this by taking advantage of the autosomal chromosomes – the 22 chromosomes that are passed down from your ancestors on both sides of your family – and your X chromosome(s). That is what actually shows relation; anything beyond that to determine genetic relation is hypothetical speculation pseudoscience. Which is of course why evolutionists love using it for evidence of genetic relatedness.
    Think about it like this, remember when they tried to build phylogenetic trees using cytochrome B (Cytb)? Thinking it was the best area to test because it helps form APT (the energy-carrying molecule found in the cells of all living things). Then they found cytochrome C (CytC), which ended up being better in their minds because it functions in the mitochondria as a key participant in the life-supporting function of ATP synthesis and has fewer steps involved. However… when they built their trees using each of these they ended up getting DIFFERENT results! Yes, a different tree of life formed looking at different things that performed essentially the same thing. The tree results they got from C were not what they needed, so now Cytb is used as a region of mitochondrial DNA for determining phylogenetic relationships among different organisms since it matches the evolutionary tree they want to exist. According to W. Ford Doolittle From Stanford: University. Molecular biology has “failed to find the ‘true tree,’ not because their methods are inadequate…, but because the history of life cannot properly be represented as a tree.” The dream of finding a molecular Tree of Life using cytochrome c, or any other biological compound, remains only as an elusive evolutionary dream.
    This means that most of the differences for such sequences are not neutral, but are indeed functional. In such a protein, that is otherwise so similar, it wouldn't take much to get to a new sequence if the new sequence was more functionally beneficial or "optimal" Some argue that this doesn't happen because the different sequences are equally beneficial or "optimal" if applied to the same organism. That is basically arguing that the differences are not in fact functional differences, but are actually neutral with respect to a functional optimum. Again, that makes no sense in light of the evidence that the differences, in addition to the similarities, are maintained over time. If this neutral argument were correct, then the distribution of sequences would be more randomly distributed. In other words, it would not be so neatly nested.
    The evidence of functional maintenance over time is very strong evidence that those sequences that still appear to be somewhat "nested" are not so much the result of common ancestry as they are the result of various functional needs of different organisms in different environments. The more different the overall phenotype combined with the overall environment, the more different one can expect the individual sequences of a great many genes and proteins to be. And, this is pretty much what we find in real life.
    Protein-coding genes represent LESS than 2% of the total genome, a significant chunk of the 80% must represent gene desert regions. But is this biochemical evidence relevant? Does a biochemical signature in a laboratory experiment have any bearing on how DNA might function in the wild? In 2012, the results of the genome-wide study were published. these studies were the ones claiming evidence for function in around 80% of the human genome. One of the ENCODE project researchers speculated that, eventually, evidence would accumulate for function in nearly 100% of the human genome.
    This expectation is plausible for at least two reasons. First, when DNA sequences are plotted against organismal complexity, only a subsection of the genome shows a good positive correlation. The protein-coding DNA is not a good predictor of biological complexity.
    We see that when mice is that some of these protein-coding genes appeared to control very little – some genes appeared to be redundant. Like a spare tire in your car, created as a backup. Of mouse genes that have been knocked out individually, only around 40% are essential for mouse life.

  4. Hi my names is James, I am no where near as smart as you younger guys, but I am a street preacher. I don't even have a high school degree. But I have been told by atheist when I debate them that this theory has been proven wrong. I no it is a lie, so can someone pleas give me a source to shut these guys down?

  5. 17:55 truly eugenics is a false science
    People didn't start in Africa 🌍 based on actual observable scientific methods like fossils let alone the biblical narrative that says it was by the Euphrates.

  6. The assumption that life began with the flood is questionable. What would be your explanation be if the flood didn’t happen? There isn’t sufficient evidence to establish that the flood actually occurred, so this makes your explanation questionable.

  7. Great work guys and thanks for the informative content you provide us with.

    I have a question for a future video, or perhaps it's already covered in an existing one that you can point me to.

    How do we explain what looks like a fused chromosome 2 in humans, which the interventionists like to use in connection with the narrative of the Anunaki/ancient aliens who modified us or seeded us here.

    Many thanks for any help in dealing with this one.

  8. Darwin showing the freemason's vow of silence sign should tell you all you need to. I have seen him also posing with the hidden hand and eye of horus. Jesus called them the synagogue of satan. They are all liars and murderers like their father the devil who was a murderer from the beginning. John 8:44
    Financed by the Rothschild money changers just like they financed the 30 pieces for Judas.

  9. Young Earth Creation great work brother. I love how the scoffers look back to the geological column as there evidence against the Genetics because its all they got. The geological column as you have pointed out many times isn't old but Young and formed during the flood and the fact that we find cold slabs under the crust proves it was the flood and not millions of years that formed them. Great work brother don't let them slow you down or discourage you for as 2 peter points out they are willingly ignorant they don't want to be convinced.
    As my preacher tells me if they don't want to listen to you don't fight just move on because if you start fighting you will get into your flesh and sin by anger. Just kick the dust off your feet as Jesus said

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.