You are searching about 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei, today we will share with you article about 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei is useful to you.
The Myth of Human Evolution
Our solar system hurtles through the universe, spinning and turning with the precision and timing of a fine watch. The biosphere of our planet is perfect, able to forever sustain all life in perfect balance and harmony while requiring the addition of nothing other than sunlight. The ‘simplest’ form of life is represented by a one-celled bacteria, acknowledged to be many times more complex than the most complex thing ever created by man. However, the living cell also possesses the miraculous capability of self-reproduction! The human body is comprised of at least twenty trillion cells (20,000,000,000,000), each of which is more complex than a bacterium. Shortly after the human female egg is fertilized it begins producing cells. Somehow, each one of those cells immediately knows where to go and how to begin functioning in combination with other cells in the formation of a greater sub-system, and each sub-system understands how to interact with and begin coordinating with many other systems. Hundreds of millions of cells begin forming into what will eventually become the optic nerve, which is actually an optics and electrical communications bus of fantastic complexity and refinement that allows the brain to process optical data and interpret and regulate functions of vision. In fact, the human eye with its complementary systems is infinitely more complex and refined than the most advanced video camera, and just the lens of the eye represents a level of achievement in optical science that far surpasses the multi-tiered optical systems of the most advanced telescopes. Other processes begin that somehow lead the direction of calcium and mineral carrier cells in the construction of thousands of different, complex designs of bone and tooth formations of varying densities and consistencies. Some have enamel layering depending on function, and others mobile connecting joints with built-in permanent lubrication systems along with blood producing factories located within bone cores that represent nothing less than wonders of technological design. All the while this intelligently guided planning is being organized and inter-coordinated with other processes resulting in the creation of nerve, hormonal, glandular, digestive, lymphatic, pulmonary, muscular, auditory, cardio-circulatory and olfactory systems, sub-systems and organs that reflect a truly incomprehensible degree of complexity, intricacy and engineering mastery. The human brain is by far the most complex thing in the universe. With the tremendous advancements in knowledge gained in recent years as to how the brain functions and what it does, scientists will affirm that using presently available computer technology they could not duplicate the human brain’s processing power or data storage capacity even if they could construct a computer the size of the planet earth! (The fastest, most powerful super-computing arrays yet developed by IBM and NEC have processing speeds equivalent to at most one-third of the brain-of a common housefly.) In fact, it has been estimated that the power and capacity of the human brain to process and store information is infinite! Most of what our brains do is performed without our conscious realization as hundreds of thousands of complex, elaborate systems are constantly monitored, regulated, controlled and communicated with via untold trillions of instruction sets per millisecond, 24 hours a day, over a nervous and chemical network that makes the entire world’s satellite and fiber optics telecommunications systems combined seem like a crude, simple and primitive toy. However, the most amazing thing done by the brain is something that no computer can begin to do, which is to enable the generation of original conscious thought, reason and emotion.
During the 19th Century it was thought by scientists that the universe consisted of two basic entities-matter and energy. Due to the great scientific advancements that have occurred in the 20th Century coupled with a deeper awareness and level of thought, it is now seen that there is a third, vastly more important entity at work in the universe and that is required for life to exist-information. Information is a mass-less quantity that is not reducible to energy. This awareness is forcing another realization that is taking root among many contemporary scientists and thoughtful people-the acknowledgement that information is only generated by intelligence, and intelligence is meaningless, impotent and even impossible apart from an original, driving purpose-in other words a will and a desire-a personality.
Of this kind of science [evolution] it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.’ ” Dr. David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).
Almost 150 years after the publication of Darwin’s “The Origin of Species”, the postulated law of biogenesis remains unchallenged-life can only come from previously existing life. In Darwin’s time biologic and organic systems were thought to be many, many times simpler than they are known to be today. Just the likelihood of all of the tremendously complex organic components being formed and then coming together by any imaginary scenario of chance to create the nucleus of cellular life, DNA, can be shown to be an impossibility “of the highest order”. Yet even then the DNA could not have survived without the equally complex, highly structured systems of support needed and that are present in the simplest living. The double strand helix of DNA is called by scientists: “The most densely packed and elaborately detailed assembly of information in the universe.” Far from being able to create life in a laboratory, scientists today will readily say that they have only scratched the surface in uncovering the seemingly imponderable mysteries and complexities of organic life. Note: Evolutionists admit that the possibility of the right combination of atoms and molecules falling into place to form just one simple protein molecule is at least 1 in 10 raised to 113- a number that exceeds the estimated total number of atoms contained in all of the billions of stars within each of all the billions of galaxies in the known universe combined! Mathematicians dismiss as having never taken place, even regardless of an infinite time frame, anything that has a probability of occurrence of less than 1 in 10 raised to 50. But far more than one simple protein molecule is needed for life. Some 2000 complex protein molecules are needed just for a cell to maintain its activity, and the chance that all of them could occur at random is greater than 1 in 10 raised to 40,000! However, many scientists feel that this calculation does not represent the most difficult challenge to the spontaneous generation of cellular life, since it doesn’t take into consideration the issue of structure, in the same way that a huge pile of steel, aluminum, plastic and glass is not automatically structured into a Boeing 777.
“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact, it is a tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling.” – T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission.
Within the genetic code of any living thing there is allowance for variation. For example, all members of the feline or cat family could have sprung from just two original cats, a male and a female. But variation and speciation (formation of a new ‘species’), among felines does not represent evolution since there is no vertical or upward increase in genetic complexity that has occurred. It is an example of horizontal change with no increase in complexity, as when dog or horse breeders selectively breed those animals to bring out certain characteristics. A dog can be bred to a certain size, either smaller or larger, but there is a point at which there is no further change possible since that limit allowed for in the genetic material (DNA), has been reached, and it is impossible for a dog to be inter-fertile with any other family of animal. A dog can never become anything other than a dog, and there is no evidence to indicate or even suggest that it has ever been anything other than a dog. Almost all of the so-called ‘evidence’ of evolution that is cited in textbooks represents this type of horizontal adaptation that occurs continually in all living things, however it would be a complete mistake to think of it as evolution as this is not what is taking place. The evolutionary idea that change occurs gradually in living organisms due to the passing on of inherited mutations has been completely discredited, yet this impossibility is still taught as fact in most school systems world-wide! True genetic mutations are extremely rare in nature and of those, 99% are demonstrably harmful to their recipients and render them no beneficial advantage. The extremely small percentages of mutations that are not harmful are seen as being neutral. Finally, almost all mutations are repaired and blocked from genetic transference within 3 generations due to the self-rejuvenating nature of DNA. Just as was the case with the peppered moth in 19th Century England, living organisms are constantly giving birth to a wide variety of non-exact duplications of themselves that are allowed for within the limits imposed by their genetic sphere, and one particular variation can become dominant in any population due to the very real process of natural selection through ‘survival of the fittest’ (but this never results in vertical, upward change representing increased genetic complexity). Dr. Jay Y. Chien, an internationally respected scientist with the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology in China is best noted for his extensive, groundbreaking research into the best-preserved fossil fields in the world representative of the ‘Cambrian’ geologic era, located in China’s Yunnan Province. Dr. Chien has stated that his research convincingly reveals Darwin’s hypothesized ‘Tree of Life’ to be in reality almost exactly the opposite of what Darwin proposed, (Darwin’s ‘Tree’ is always displayed in high-school and college biology texts as accurately representing the history of all evolutionary descent on earth, and is the most famous icon of evolutionary dogma). However, long-standing research by scientists into the Cambrian era, evolution’s so-called ‘Big-Bang’, has always shown that almost all now existing animal phyla (types) had suddenly appeared in that one geologic time-span. In the words of scientists: “almost overnight”, geologically speaking.
“The creation account in Genesis [Bible] and the theory of evolution could not be reconciled. One must be right and the other wrong. The story of the fossils agreed with the account of Genesis. In the oldest rocks we did not find a series of fossils covering the gradual changes from the most primitive creatures to developed forms, but rather in the oldest rocks developed species suddenly appeared. Between every species there was a complete absence of intermediate fossils.” D.B. Gower, “Scientist Rejects Evolution,” Kentish Times, England, December 11, 1975 [biochemist].
Evolutionary explanations have no means of accounting for instinct in living things, which is the pre-programmed ability of some animals, birds and insects to perform feats that sometimes reflect what almost seems to be a superhuman wisdom. Certain ant colonies in sub-Saharan Africa build large above ground communities that incorporate a very ingenious method of natural air-conditioning that can maintain the interior temperature of the hill at a level 15 degrees cooler than the outside air. The delicate ant larvae within the community need to be maintained at this lower temperature or they will not survive. The exact way in which this impressive feat of engineering was accomplished was studied for many years before it was fully understood, and now the same principle of design is incorporated in civil engineering allowing for the building of much more energy-efficient structures. Evolution has no way of rationally explaining how co-dependency in biologic or ecological systems, also called ‘irreducible complexity’, came about. A very simple example of this can be illustrated by the clotting of blood in all warm-blooded creatures. It has been discovered that the clotting of blood is a very complicated chain of processes involving 8 separate chemical reactions. If one reaction does not occur, or if a specific enzyme or other organic factor is not present, blood will not clot. An evolutionary explanation would require us to believe that the first warm-blooded creature had possessed this extremely complex ability, or it would not have survived, and it would then have needed to pass this ability on as an inherited mutation to its offspring.
“Evolution is baseless and quite incredible.” John Ambrose Fleming, President, British Association for the Advancement of Science, in ‘The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought’
Oftentimes, highly touted bone-fragment finds are disingenuously portrayed through the media and in textbooks as representing the ‘part animal, part man’ ancestors of humans. However, when the fragmented skeletal remains of these purported ‘ape-men’ are examined by experts in blind studies (when they have no prior knowledge of what they are examining), scientific consensus consistently and virtually always identifies them as representing either the remains of extinct apes, or as in the case of so-called ‘Neanderthal Man’, of a human with an advanced bone disease. When impressive artistic and digital renderings of these peculiar looking creatures as well as the evolutionary stages they supposedly transitioned through are graphically depicted in textbooks, TV programs and magazines, it is on the basis of pure speculation, imagination and wishful thinking. The strongest ‘evidence’ that evolutionists have in attempting to prove that there was once an ape that walked on two feet is a very short span of the imbedded hind prints of an ape without accompanying fore prints located at the site of an ancient volcanic lava flow in Tanzania, Africa; so that this site is world famous among evolutionists. Insofar as several animals including apes can be witnessed running on their hind legs for short distances today, and given the fact of the lava being extremely hot at the time the ape was there producing the prints, does this constitute proof? Note – evolutionists will admit it is the strongest proof they have!
“What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen, belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works.” Dr. Arthur N. Field.
Why would an ‘ape-man’ that represented an improvement over a mere ape go extinct, while its inferior predecessor would not? How is it that flowering plants evolved the necessity of being pollinated by honeybees, therefore requiring a flower, when the atmospheric dispersion method used by most non-flowering plants is much more efficient, and why so many different types and colors of flowers when pollinating insects are for the most part attracted to one flower just as well as any other, and are insensitive to color? Should we expect an ape to possess the highest level of intelligence and reasoning ability in the animal world, as an evolutionary model would suggest? However in many specific aspects this is definitely not the case, and an ape is no more intelligent overall than many other animals. In its evolutionary progression toward becoming a reptile, did a fish undergo the thousands of changes necessary in order to evolve the ability to breath without gills (no small feat), concurrently with evolving the thousands of changes that would have been necessary before its fins became reptilian legs? Did the changes that occurred before the fins became usable as legs or the gills became usable as lungs render the fish a survivability advantage, or were many thousands of useless mutations retained and passed on?
“The theory of evolution suffers from grave defects, which are more and more apparent as time advances. It can no longer square with practical scientific knowledge…The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination.” Dr. Albert Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].
Evolutionists once tried to say that humans possessed hundreds of useless organs that were carry-overs from previous evolutionary stages, what they called ‘vestigial organs’. This was prominently cited as a proof of evolution in the past and it was taught as such in school textbooks, but now it is medically recognized that there are no vestigial organs in humans, none at all. It was once thought by many evolutionists (and taught in some textbooks), that the human embryo mimicked many stages of its evolutionary past while developing in the womb, including one stage where an attempt was made by the fetus to develop fish gills. This is now acknowledged by medical science to be complete, ridiculous nonsense. Evolutionists like to flaunt the fact that there are species of plants and animals living on the Galapagos Chain of islands that exist nowhere else (located off the coast of Ecuador, the Galapagos is where Darwin formulated many of his ideas on evolution). However this is insignificant in terms of even suggesting evolution, as those referred to species are closely related to and inter-fertile with their parent families that do exist on the mainland of Ecuador, so that this represents nothing more than another example of horizontal adaptation. In the book “The Blind Watchmaker”, Richard Dawkins reveals great imaginary talents in illustrating a purely conjectural explanation of the evolutionary process, while offering absolutely no proof of it (and by his own admission the simplest living organism contains at least enough structured information to completely fill all 30 volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica!)
“I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings… I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin’s theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all.” Dr. H. Lipson, “A Physicist Looks at Evolution,” Physics Bulletin (1980).
While it’s true that the ages of some organic specimens are often erroneously reported as being millions or billions of years old, these ages are arrived at 1) through the use of radiometric dating techniques that are admittedly highly suspect, and acknowledged to be unreliable due to many factors and variables especially as one goes further back in time, but primarily 2) through forcing the age of the specimen to fit into an estimate that ‘seems’ reasonable according to an arbitrary evolutionary time-frame. The practice of arriving at age estimates in this latter way is widely criticized as an example of what is referred to as the ‘*circular reasoning’ of so much of what constitutes evolutionary logic; the presumption that since evolution is true, therefore this is how old it is, this is how it must have happened, etc-a way of thinking that is becoming increasingly ostracized for its lack of scientific soundness. Variables that call into question the validity of radiometric dating methods include ozone layer consistency over time, magnetic field disruption, the very imprecise science of accurately measuring rates of decay (resulting in great disparity of age estimates produced by different laboratories taken from the same sample, or even from the same sample at the same lab), and most fundamentally the extremely flawed assumption that isotopic samples represented a state of zero radioactive decay when first formed. In fact, the trend in science today is to dismiss the validity of ages arrived at through radiometric dating for ages over a few thousand years.
“Therefore, a grotesque account of a period some thousands of years ago is taken seriously though it be built by piling special assumptions on special assumptions, ad hoc hypothesis [invented for a purpose] on ad hoc hypothesis, and tearing apart the fabric of science whenever it appears convenient. The result [evolution] is a fantasia which is neither history nor science.” James Conant [chemist and former president, Harvard University], quoted in Origins Research, 1982.
For many people, objections against considering the possibility of creation are based on a very narrow, artificial definition of science, which states that only observable physical phenomenon belong within the appropriate realm of science to consider. Since creation would require acknowledging the existence of an unseen creator, it is a concept they say exists outside of the proper boundaries of science to evaluate. Yet this violates the true spirit of science which is after all a pursuit of uncovering that which is true, and is tantamount to saying that truth cannot be acknowledged. It is true that an intelligent creator cannot be seen, but many of the most noted scientists of world history-Copernicus, Confucius, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, Pasteur, Darwin, Von Braun and many, many more did not doubt the reality of a higher intelligence behind the existence of the universe.
“Unfortunately, in the field of evolution most explanations are not good. As a matter of fact, they hardly qualify as explanations at all; they are suggestions, hunches, pipe dreams, hardly worthy of being called hypotheses.” Dr. Norman Macbeth, Darwin Retried (1971).
Video about 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei
You can see more content about 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei on our youtube channel: Click Here
Question about 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei
If you have any questions about 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!
The article 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!
Rate Articles 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei
Rate: 4-5 stars
Search keywords 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei
2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei
way 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei
tutorial 2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei
2 Are Plant Nuclei Always Larger Than Animal Nuclei free
#Myth #Human #Evolution