Darwinian evolution is wrong because it flies in the face of both science and the Bible. The concept of change (the basic meaning of the word 'evolution') is sound, for things change over time. However, this happens via the established means of reproduction within genera and/or families. Any change to another kind of organism, as Darwin and his followers proposed, is scientifically impossible and Biblically heretical.

This is a problem for Darwinian evolution, anatomy is not specified by DNA, it is electricity!! Besides epigenetics, now bioelectricity , it seems that the information for the body development comes in layers of information, which contradicts the well known mantra ? mutations and natural selection ?, looks like Darwin was wrong one more time . ?For the past 65 years, the focus of developmental biology has been on DNA as the carrier of biological information. Researchers have typically assumed that genetic expression patterns alone are enough to determine embryonic development. To Levin, however, that explanation is unsatisfying. ?Where does shape come from? What makes an elephant different from a snake?? he asked. DNA can make proteins inside cells, he said, but ?there is nothing in the genome that directly specifies anatomy.? To develop properly, he maintains, tissues need spatial cues that must come from other sources in the embryo. At least some of that guidance, he and his team believe, is electrical.? ?In recent years, by working on tadpoles and other simple creatures, Levin?s laboratory has amassed evidence that the embryo is molded by bioelectrical signals, particularly ones that emanate from the young brain long before it is even a functional organ. Those results, if replicated in other organisms, may change our understanding of the roles of electrical phenomena and the nervous system in development, and perhaps more widely in biology. ?Levin?s findings will shake some rigid orthodoxy in the field,? said Sui Huang, a molecular biologist at the Institute for Systems Biology. If Levin?s work holds up, Huang continued, ?I think many developmental biologists will be stunned to see that the construction of the body plan is not due to local regulation of cells ? but is centrally orchestrated by the brain.? New Bird Species Arises From Hybrids, as Scientis…

More of the lies of Darwinian evolution, men are superior than women ; ?Moving from peacocks to people, Darwin claimed that equality was scientifically impossible. In line with his own ingrained assumptions, the standard ones of Victorian England, Darwin maintained that female inferiority is an inescapable consequence of nature. Men are cleverer, ran his argument, because over the millennia, their brains have become honed by chasing animals and defending their families. ?The chief distinction in the intellectual powers of the two sexes,? he wrote, ?is shown by man?s attaining to a higher eminence in whatever he takes up, than can woman?whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses or the hands.? To attract a powerful man, he explained, women compete by dressing elaborately. His admirers backed him up. A fashionable woman, commented H. G. Wells, surpassed even the extravagance of peacocks by providing ?an unwholesome stimulant? for men.? How Darwin's theory of evolution viewed wome…

An interesting article from PLOS blog , it really talks about ? scientism? and how the ? science popularizers ?like Tyson or Nye are damaging science, interestingly it is Tyson who is mentioned in that article as an example, and interesting also that Berlinsky ( the one who said in a video that natural selection is just luck and was later confirmed by Cornell university and also senior fellow of the Discovery Institute?s Center for Science and Culture)is mentioned as one who gave an accurate description of the problem, the lack of use of the scientific method. I find interesting that often evolutionists use Aron Ra as a source but they don?t accept sources like CMI, ENV, ICR or AIG among others when the authors hold degrees in their areas. ?The fact is, scientific thinking about most topics is difficult to achieve and maintain ? that is what editors, reviewers, and other scientists, who attempt to test and extend the observations of others, are for ? together they keep science real and honest. Until an observation has been repeated or confirmed by others, it can best be regarded as an interesting possibility, rather than a scientifically established fact. Moreover, until a plausible mechanism explaining the observation has been established, it remains a serious possibility that the entire phenomena will vanish, more or less quietly (think cold fusion). The disappearing physiological effects of ?power posing? comes to mind. Nevertheless the incentives to support even disproven results can be formidable, particularly when there is money to be made and egos on the line.? Is a little science a dangerous thing? | Sci-Ed