Darwinian Evolution is Not Happening
The main dogma of evolutionary biologists is that organisms evolve through genetic mutations, in response to the challenges posed by their environment. And that is how the Amoeba became the dinosaur became the shark became the manatee became the platypus became the donkey became the monkey became you. A mysterious entity called “Nature” supposedly selected those with the right genetic equipment, and the rest went extinct.
Of course, none of this can be proven in a lab. And neither can we find intermediate species transitioning from one to the next. So evolutionary biologists invented a wonderful loophole. They argued that this takes millions of years and so humans cannot be witness to it. They also concurrently argued that human life on earth was thus very very old. But to satisfy critics, Darwin presented several different species of finches from the Galapagos. Their beaks differed based on their feeding habits. The implication was that they genetically evolved from a single ancestor based on what diet was available to them.
A definition of the concept of epigenetic trait as a “stably heritable phenotype resulting from changes in a chromosome without alterations in the DNA sequence” was formulated at a Cold Spring Harbor meeting in 2008,
What was that? Heritable changes in the phenotype can happen without genetic alterations or mutations? That is quite a big blow to all evolutionary theories. But they are keeping quiet. I knew none of this until I came across a Reddit post (which did not even get an upvote) by user flipacoin777. Here it is (with slight editing):
Posted by u/flipacoin777 on 23rd December 2022
Evolution is not happening! The following is very well scientifically reasoned…
Is evolution really happening?
What is the evidence it is happening?
If it were observed adaptations to new environments and diets along with bacteria and viruses becoming antibiotic or body defense resistant. These were ASSUMED and taught examples of evolving DNA mutations. Was this assumption right for all these decades? No. In 2014, a pro-evolution scientist named Dr. Michael Skinner set out to MATERIALLY prove by his scientific method these adaptations were evolution-derived by naturally selected DNA mutations. Did he? No. He found they were epigenetic-derived adaptations. He did this as he used the model subject of the Darwin’s Finches. His paper said a variety of organisms returned this same conclusion. This was a surprise the scientific community.
Do you know where your gene expression comes from? It comes from your ordinary epigenome. It’s been there all along. It’s actions are called ‘epigenetics’. Evolutionary scientists asserted its adaptation ability only lasted for a couple generations and then resets. Therefore, the teaching of evolution doing these adaptations was set in place. Dr. Skinner MATERIALLY found the epigenome was under-credited. It turned out to be HUNDREDS of generations. This was finally credited as a fact of the epigenome capabilities in 2014.
What is the difference between materially vs. theoretical? Materially means factually found. Something theoretical is proposed by inferences. This material finding of it is epigenetic for adaptations disproves the inferences for mutation-derived adaptations. The epigenomes of all life is already existent before any environment or diet change. Same with bacteria and viruses in response to antibiotics. Also from body defenses. THEIR epigenomes, epigenetically adapts, too.
The ASSUMPTION of antibiotic resistance being an example of evolution by evolving mutations are now found to be smoke and mirrors.
Here is an analogy. Would it make no sense if a student completely flunks basic math and algebra but gets straight A’s in geometry and physics? Of course not. Conversely the theory of evolution is the same way. Since the theory of evolution flunks the basics…of adaptations by mutations being found wrong then why give it credit for getting all of the proposed advanced macroevolution claims correct? Epigenetic modifications are without DNA mutations…these adaptations are wrongly called ‘microevolution’ for all these decades! The ‘little steps of microevolution’ does not create the larger pictured macroevolution mind-constructs such as whales evolving from a land animal, birds from dinosaurs, or humans evolving from hominids.
So what about mutations? With supposed ‘microevolution’ being taken away, the trait differences mutations will give such as speciation and other aspects, are evolution-impertinent. A sleight of hand and a non-sequitur. These effects from mutations fit the intelligent design predictive model. Genome degeneration effects are different from the epigenome-derived adaptations. Evolutionary scientists have been equating the two as being the same but are now seen as being logistically different. Genome degeneration has been called ‘microevolution’ but is not.
The assertions of degeneration causing long term evolutionary generation is reduced to being ridiculous comic book science.
Why hadn’t the proponents of evolution abandoned the theory in 2014? They did not but said this new third aspect of epigenetics possibly contributed to the molecular evolution by mutation. Possible. In evolutionary theory it is supported by words like…may, could, infer, derive, possible, model, assume…and others. It means they are stuck with the theoretical after the finding of adaptations are materially proven to be by epigenetics. Epigenome-derived in other words without the evolutionary ‘engine’ of DNA mutations and natural selection. Natural selection is found here to be selecting these epigenome-caused adaptations so logistically, it is of an intelligent design signature. Natural selection does not even save the theory of evolution.
THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS NOT NEEDED to explain adaptations. Epigenome-derived adaptations are logistically from intelligent design.
Here is cut and paste and link from a pro-evolution source explaining this new evolution-unfriendly finding. The paper is from 2008. This type of evidence is called ‘hostile witness evidence’. Some of it would support the fans of evolution while other parts of it will support the evidence against evolution. No counter-evidence of materially proven evolution-derived adaptations since 2014 has been offered. Only continued theoretical ‘chance arguments’ for it. I can give you other examples of this type of evidence I have collected over the 13 years of research in their peer review papers of pro-evolution experts giving unfriendly findings against their case for it.
Transgenerational epigenetic effects include all processes that have evolved to achieve the nongenetic determination of phenotype. There has been a long-standing interest in this area from evolutionary biologists, who refer to it as non-Mendelian inheritance.