> Home

> Origin of the Universe (Cosmology)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Origin of Life (Abiogenesis)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> Common Descent (Darwinism)
Science or Pseudo-Science?

> How Does Evolution
Supposedly Work?

> Genetics

> Mutations

> Genetic Recombination

> Gene Duplication

> Natural Selection

> Fossil Evidence

> Stasis

> “Junk” DNA – The Biggest Blunder of Evolutionary-Based Science

> Endogenous Retroviruses

	“Nature is very good at building structures but instead of bricks and mortar it uses molecules like proteins and lipids for its building blocks. For instance, a seed can take molecules from the air, soil and water and rearrange them into a tree.” University of Wisconsin, Madison, “Molecules in nature are programmed to arrange themselves in certain ways,” Materials Research Science and Engineering Center website. http://mrsec.wisc.edu/Edetc/ nanoquest/self_assembly /index.html “To understand the complexity of the process, it is important to know that if the DNA in each cell were stretched out, it would be more than three feet long—and given the trillions of cells within a human body, it has been calculated that a single individual's DNA could stretch to cover the distance to the sun and back many times over.” “Scientists shed light on how DNA is unwound so that its code can be read,” Source: Scripps Research Institute, November 24, 2008, Physorg.com website. http://www.physorg.com/ news146755107.html

The Problem with Genetics

Evolutionists predicted that DNA analysis would finally substantiate Darwinism. But, upon discovering that many predictions were false, evolutionists are now devising new genetic mechanisms the might better explain how evolution supposedly works.
(Go to http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html )

Upon discovering that none of the known genetic mechanisms can account for how evolution supposedly occurs, evolutionists are now devising even more absurd fables. This new mechanism is called “preadaptation”:

• “The process by which parts accumulate until they’re ready to snap together is called preadaptation. It’s a form of “neutral evolution,” in which the buildup of the parts provides no immediate advantage or disadvantage. Neutral evolution falls outside the descriptions of Charles Darwin. But once the pieces gather, mutation and natural selection can take care of the rest, ultimately resulting in the now-complex form of TIM23 …
  “You look at cellular machines and say, why on earth would biology do anything like this? It’s too bizarre,” he said. “But when you think about it in a neutral evolutionary fashion, in which these machineries emerge before there’s a need for them, then it makes sense.””
  Brandon Keim, “More ‘Evidence’ of Intelligent Design Shot Down by Science,” August 27, 2009, Wired Science based on “The reducible complexity of a mitochondrial molecular machine,” Yale University, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 106 No. 33, August 25, 2009.
  http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/08/reduciblecomplexity/

So, complex parts with absolutely NO purpose miraculously assemble themselves, and then “snap” together to form a complex cellular machine? They’re kidding, right?
(Go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/how_does_evolution_occur.html)

There are NO predictions or explanations for the appearance of highly complex regulatory networks and control systems:

• “Molecular motors, the little engines that power cell mobility and the ability of cells to transport internal cargo, work together and in close coordination, according to a new finding by researchers at the University of Virginia …
  The new University of Virginia study provides strong evidence that the motors are indeed working in coordination, all pulling in one direction, as if under command, or in the opposite direction — again, as if under strict instruction.”
  University of Virginia, “Molecular Motors In Cells Work Together, Study Shows,” February 25, 2009. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090213161043.htm
  http://www.physorg.com/news163599774.html
  
• “FANTOM4 has shown that instead of having one or a few 'master regulator' genes that control growth and development, there is a sophisticated network of regulatory elements that subtly influence the ways in which genes are expressed in different cells in the body," Professor John Mattick said.
  University of Queensland, “Study Challenges Notions Of How Genes Are Controlled In Mammals,” April 23, 2009. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090420103549.htm
  
• “Had Amin Rustom not messed up, he would not have stumbled upon one of the biggest discoveries in biology of recent times …
  Using video microscopy, they watched adjacent cells reach out to each other with antenna-like projections, establish contact and then build the tubular connections. The connections were not just between pairs of cells. Cells can send out several nanotubes, forming an intricate and transient network of linked cells lasting anything from minutes to hours.
  … Nothing in his experience could explain the phenomenon.”
  “Tunnelling nanotubes: Life's secret network,” New Scientist, November 18, 2008.
  http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026821.400-tunnelling-nanotubes-lifes-secret-network.html
  
• “The genes cooperate by signaling each other, telling cells when to grow, when to make tubes, when to turn on pumps or perform other critical functions, said Bruce Aronow, Ph.D., study co-author and scientific director of the Center for Computational Medicine at Cincinnati Children's. The study also makes new headway into identifying different transcription factors – "boss" genes that regulate the activity of other genes – and the target genes they may activate or repress.”
  Cincinnati Children's Hospital Medical Center, “Slicing Chromosomes Leads To New Insights Into Cell Division,” November 10, 2008.
  http://www.physorg.com/news145543215.html
  
• “The scientists found out that the new electrical signal they called "system potential" was induced and even modulated by wounding. If a plant leaf is wounded, the signal strength can be different and can be measured over long distances in unwounded leaves, depending on the kind and concentration of added cations (e.g. calcium, potassium, or magnesium). It is not the transport of ions across cell membranes that causes the observed changes in voltage transmitted from leaf to shoot and then to the next leaf, but the activation of so-called proton pumps.”
  Justus Liebig University of Gießen and the Max Planck Institute for Chemical Ecology in Jena,“Novel Electric Signals In Plants Induced By Wounding Plant,” March 10, 2009.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090309105030.htm
  
• "The control system that determines how development of an animal occurs in each species is encoded in the genome, and the physical location of the sequences where this code is resident is being revealed in a new area of systems biology--the study of gene regulatory networks," says Davidson. Gene regulatory networks are the complex networks of gene interactions that direct the development of any given species …
  "These networks lie at the heart of the regulatory apparatus, and they consist of genes that encode proteins that regulate other genes, and the DNA sequences which control when and where they are expressed," says Davidson, who authored a paper in the special feature about a gene regulatory network found in sea urchin embryos.”
  California Institute of Technology (Caltech), “Researchers Help Unlock The Secrets Of Gene Regulatory Networks,” February 4, 2009.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090203142521.htm
  
• “The p53 protein, which exists in all the cells of the body, is commonly called the "guardian of the genome", since it detects harmful DNA changes and prevents them from being transmitted further into the body. p53 activates genetic programmes that arrest the division and growth of damaged cells or trigger their apoptosis. In half of all cancer tumours, the gene for p53 is damaged, and the scientists believe that the protein has been rendered dysfunctional in all cancer tumours.”
  Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden, “New research on the ‘guardian of the genome,’"May 12, 2009, PhyOrg.com website.
  http://www.physorg.com/news161360881.html
• “What the data showed was that the mesodermal cells move in a directed manner, traveling down and moving outward--diverging--at the same time …
  "It's as if the mesodermal cells are on a moving sidewalk," says Stathopoulos, "but as they're being moved along, they keep taking steps to the side."
  The researchers found, in addition, that this choreography is anything but chaotic. The cells stayed in more or less the same order throughout their travels, following a set of "leader" cells and rarely if ever crossing over the midline of the pack.”http://www.physorg.com/news148050302.html
  
• “Our cells are controlled by billions of molecular "switches" and chemists at UC Santa Barbara have developed a theory that explains how these molecules work …
  All creatures, from bacteria to humans, must monitor their environments in order to survive, explained the authors. They do so with biomolecular switches, made from RNA or proteins …
  However, unlike the single light switch that controls any one light in a house, cells use hundreds to millions of copies of each switch. Because there is more than one copy involved, the switching process is not a binary, "all-or-none" process. Instead, the output signal is determined by the fraction of switches that move from the off state to the on state.”
  UC Santa Barbara, “Chemists Explain The Switchboards In Our Cells,” August 5, 2009, ScienceDaily.com
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/08/090803185838.htm
  
• "We found that some 25 percent of the genes in our model organism appear to be under clock control. I wasn't suspecting anything remotely like that."
  "It appears the clock influences a number of biological processes, including cell cycling, protein metabolism and varied signaling processes," said Arnold.
  University of Georgia, “Study shows more genes are controlled by biological clocks,” August 29, 2008, Physorg.com
  http://www.physorg.com/news139226726.html

Evolution predicted that, over time, new genes arose that produced more complex organisms. However, it has been discovered that lower forms of life already possessed the same ‘fundamental genes’ that create more complex features found in much higher forms of life:

• “A popular view among evolutionary biologists that fundamental genes do not acquire new functions was challenged this week by a new study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences …
  "The evolution of novel features does not require the evolution of novel genes," Moczek said. "A lot of innovation can grow from within the organism's genetic toolbox."”
  http://pda.physorg.com/genes-development-evolutionarybiologists_news161280793.html
  
• “"Evolution has a 'toolkit' and when it needs to do a particular job, such as see light, it uses the same toolkit again and again," explains lead author Margaret McFall-Ngai, a professor of medical microbiology and immunology at the UW-Madison School of Medicine and Public Health (SMPH). "In this case, the light organ, which comes from different tissues than the eye during development, uses the same proteins as the eye to see light."”
  University of Wisconsin-Madison, “Not Just Through The Eyes: Squid 'Sight' Offers Insight Into Treating Human Eye Diseases,” June 3, 2009, ScienceDaily Website.
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/06/090601182828.htm
  
• “Now for one little problem: The bat Prx1 and mouse Prx1 genes are almost identical! There are only two amino-acid differences between the two proteins, and neither of those alterations is located in regions of the protein that have significant binding activity. This suggests that the two genes do exactly the same thing, but that they are regulated differently — that there is variation in the parts of the genome that turn mouse and bat Prx1 on and off. It's key, then, to look at regions of DNA in the neighborhood of the protein-coding portion of Prx1 and find the switches that control it. That is where we expect to see a difference.”
  http://www.seedmagazine.com/news/2008/08/wing_of_bat_and_mouses_leg.php
• “The primary cilium is a generally non-motile cilium that occurs singly on most cells in the vertebrate body. The function of this organelle, which has been the subject of much speculation but little experimentation, has been unknown. Recent findings reveal that the primary cilium is an antenna displaying specific receptors and relaying signals from these receptors to the cell body.”
  http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=14469338
• “Despite the impressive amount of progress made over the past decade, we are left with even more challenging and critical questions. These questions include how extracellular stimuli perceived by the cilia result in changes in cell behavior and physiology …”
  http://ajprenal.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/289/6/F1159
  
• “The primary cilium, the solitary, antenna-like structure that studs the outer surfaces of virtually all human cells, orient cells to move in the right direction and at the speed needed to heal wounds, much like a Global Positioning System helps ships navigate to their destinations.”
  http://www.physorg.com/news148742058.html
  
• “The puzzle of how higher animals develop – how a mass of undifferentiated cells organise themselves into specialised, functioning tissues, organs, and organisms – could now be solved – and the clue has been right under our noses for over a century.
  Every mammalian cell has a single primary cilium. This structure sticks out from the cell membrane like a cellphone aerial. First noticed by 19th Century microscopists, it was thought to be a useless, vestigial structure like the appendix. But recent discoveries show it is absolutely pivotal in cell differentiation and maintenance of tissue and organ structure and function.”
  http://scimednet.blogspot.com/2008/06/primary-cilium-antenna-for-organising.html
  
• “Almost every vertebrate cell has a specialized cell surface projection called a primary cilium. Although these structures were first described more than a century ago, the full scope of their functions remains poorly understood. Here, we review emerging evidence that in addition to their well-established roles in sight, smell, and mechanosensation, primary cilia are key participants in intercellular signaling.”
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/313/5787/629
  

Evolution predicted that DNA analysis would confirm existing morphology-based ancestry, but DNA analysis has only confused evolutionary relationships:

• “They discovered that certain groups of organisms previously shown by molecular analyses to lie within the annelid family, such as mollusks and peanut worms, could not have evolved from the same branch of the evolutionary tree as the rest of the annelids.”
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090909122108.htm
• “Animals that seem identical may belong to completely different species. This is the conclusion of researchers at the University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who have used DNA analyses to discover that one of our most common segmented worms is actually two types of worm. The result is one of many suggesting that the variety of species on the earth could be considerably larger than we thought …
  But when the researchers examined the worms using advanced methods for DNA analysis, they discovered that they were in fact two different species. Both species of worm differ in one of the examined genes by 17 percent, which is twice as much as the equivalent difference between humans and chimpanzees.”
  http://www.physorg.com/news159631527.html
• “In line with our model, molecular evolution trees often do not fit a morphology-based evolution tree.”
  http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/nauka-rel/universal_genome.htm
• “Today's computational tools use sequence similarity, assuming that genes with similar sequences indicate common ancestry …
  But Durand's tests showed that this assumption often does not hold. Her team found disturbing results when they compared sequence similarity to their Neighborhood Correlation method in evaluating the 20 gene families with established histories. The sequence similarity method actually yielded false ancestral associations and missed true ancestral relationships.”
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/05/080515205640.htm
• “When full DNA sequences opened the way to comparing many different genes in different organisms, the comparisons proved confounding. Rather than clarifying the tree that seeks to show how life evolved, they often produced new trees that differ from the traditional tree and conflict with each other as well. Now some microbiologists, pointing to evidence that microbes have swapped genes wantonly over evolutionary history, say that many of these genes are an unreliable guide to evolutionary history and the old tree is still basically sound. But others think it's time to uproot the old tree and are proposing candidates for new trees based on specific features of the genome and cell structure. And still others worry that gene swapping has turned the tree of life into a tangled briar whose lineages will be next to impossible to discern.”
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/284/5418/1305
• “So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date.”
  Trisha Gura, “Bones, Molecules or Both” Nature, Vol. 406, pg 230-233. July 20, 2000

Evolution predicted that mutations and natural selection would create new features in existing organisms, but Almost ALL mutations are detected and ‘re-written’ by miniscule machines that check for errors:
(See more about mutations: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/mutations.html)

• “Research published in 2007 showed the importance of the nuclear protein UHRF1 in ensuring that the epigenetic code is accurately copied …
  The key element of UHRF1 involved in this "proofreading" process is known as the Set and Ring Associated (SRA) domain, but the exact mechanisms by which the SRA domain accomplishes this task were unclear.”
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080903134159.htm
  
• “But the mechanisms of DNA replication and repair are so accurate that even where no such selection operates – at the many sites in the DNA where a change of nucleotide has no effect on the fitness of the organism – the genetic message is faithfully preserved over tens of millions of years.”
  “Essential Cell Biology” textbook, Second Edition, Section 6:20, 2003 Garland Science (See PDF)
• “A mathematical analysis of the experiments showed that the proteins themselves acted to correct any imbalance imposed on them through artificial mutations and restored the chain to working order …
  The authors sought to identify the underlying cause for this self-correcting behavior in the observed protein chains. Standard evolutionary theory offered no clues … The scientists are working on formulating a new general theory based on this finding they are calling "evolutionary control."”
  http://www.physorg.com/news145549897.html

Evolution predicted that once genetic changes were ‘fixed’ in populations, previous DNA would not arise again. However, it has been shown that organisms can miraculously restore DNA up to 8 generations AFTER a feature has disappeared:

• “Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD5 (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information that was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations. This previously undescribed process is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore seems to be a general mechanism for extra-genomic inheritance of DNA sequence information. We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.”
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380.html
  
• “Here, we show that a rice triploid and diploid hybridization resulted in stable diploid progenies, both in genotypes and phenotypes, through gene homozygosity. Furthermore, their gene homozygosity can be inherited through 8 generations, and they can convert DNA sequences of other rice varieties into their own. Molecular-marker examination confirmed that this type of genome-wide gene conversion occurred at a very high frequency. Possible mechanisms, including RNA-templated repair of double-strand DNA, are discussed.”
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502903?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.
  PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA

‘Mitochondrial Eve’ and the ‘Molecular Clock’ DNA dating techniques have found to be invalid and useless:

• “A likelihood-ratio test, however, rejected a molecular clock for both genes. Neither calibration point produced estimates of divergence times consistent with paleontological evidence over a range of perissodactyl radiations.”
  http://www.biomedexperts.com/Abstract.bme/10654255/Phylogenetics_
  of_Perissodactyla_and_tests_of_the_molecular_clock
• “There is a general ignorance among proponents of «unique mother» hypotheses regarding the distribution of biological variability on the surface of the globe, a fact which renders the molecular clock inaccurate, and which upsets the simplistic proposal that molecular diversity equates with time …
  These and other difficulties effectively refute the «Mitochondrial Eve» hypothesis, which in any case much resembles creationism of a special kind, in which the offspring of a breeding pair are visualised as belonging to a species different from its parents. Such extreme examples of the punctuational mode of evolution are highly likely to be incorrect.”
  http://www.springerlink.com/content/mv5812037q10u886/
  
• “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."
  http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/biot.2006.1.4.357
  
• “For more than two decades, biologists have used mitochondrial DNA to peer into the past, to time the divergences of organisms from each other, and to map human migrations. Now a wash of sequence data reveals that in many cases, the main assumption underlying this "molecular clock" doesn't hold up: The clock ticks at different rates in different lineages and at different times.”
  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/summary/283/5407/1435

Only changes in cells involved with sexual reproduction (germ cells) are passed down to offspring. During reproduction, germ cells combine by a very complicated process http://www.cellsalive.
com/meiosis.htm and programmed cell death (apoptosis) destroys most irregular cells that may arise:

• “Via mechanisms still poorly understood, a checkpoint in the reproduction process can detect problems that interfere with DNA copying. This detection can in turn trigger several potential responses.
  "If the cycle is paused because the cell is having some problem," says study lead Professor Curt Wittenberg, of the Scripps Research Departments of Molecular Biology and Cell Biology, "it can't stop and go back, so it either kills the new cell or repairs the problem."”
  http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080806184903.htm
• “In short, the notion that molecules of germ cells … are in states of perpetual change is not, in our present understanding of cell biology, tenable. This doesn’t mean that “molecular change” does not occur; only that mechanisms provoking such change in germ cells are likely instantaneous and stochastic and probably often lethal (Maresca and Schwartz 2006) – which will preclude their persistence into future generations.”
  http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1162/biot.2006.1.4.357
  
• “At the genomic level, recombination creates diversity by reshuffling genetic information between homologous chromosomes … Alterations in the normal recombination pattern are often associated with errors in chromosome segregation in humans, and these errors are a major cause of spontaneous abortions and congenital birth defects, including mental retardation.”
  (Under section, Meiotic Recombination Does Not Occur at Random Throughout the Genome)
  http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlserv/?request=get-document&doi=
  10.1371/journal.pbio.0050333
  
• “Within the last decade, aberrant meiotic recombination has been confirmed as a molecular risk factor for chromosome nondisjunction in humans. Recombination tethers homologous chromosomes, linking and guiding them through proper segregation at meiosis I. In model organisms, mutations that disturb the recombination pathway increase the frequency of chromosome malsegregation and alterations in both the amount and placement of meiotic recombination are associated with nondisjunction. This association has been established for humans as well.”
  http://content.karger.com/ProdukteDB/produkte.asp?Doi=86896
  
• “No nucleotide sequences are altered at the site of exchange; the cleavage and rejoining event occur so precisely that not a single nucleotide is lost or gained.”
  "Essential Cell Biology” textbook, Second Edition, Section 6:21, 2003 Garland Science (See PDF)
  
• “Meiotic cells possess a surveillance mechanism referred to as the ‘pachytene’ checkpoint or the meiotic recombination checkpoint that monitors these critical meiosis-specific events … In response to defects in recombination that lead to accumulation of unrepaired DSBs and/or other recombination intermediates, the pachytene checkpoint triggers meiotic cell cycle arrest or delay to prevent meiotic chromosome missegregation (Roeder and Bailis, 2000)."
  http://jcs.biologists.org/cgi/content/full/116/2/259
  
• “Apoptosis, or programmed cell death, is a normal component of the development and health of multicellular organisms. Cells die in response to a variety of stimuli and during apoptosis they do so in a controlled, regulated fashion … “
  http://www.sgul.ac.uk/depts/immunology/~dash/apoptosis/
  
• “In females of many species, over half of the germ-cell (oocyte) population dies by apoptosis before birth … Krakauer and Mira have interpreted this death of germ cells as a developmental solution to the accumulation of mutations in mitochondria, proposing that prenatal oocyte apoptosis effectively removes oocytes carrying mutant mitochondria.”
  http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v403/n6769/full/403500a0.html

Evolution predicted that “Junk DNA” was useless left over genetic elements from evolutionary predecessors. It’s now known that “Junk DNA” is the key to cell health and development, and the primary link to disease when it’s not functioning properly:

• Go to: http://www.whoisyourcreator.com/junk_dna.html
• “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.
  A slew of recent but unrelated studies of everything from human disease to the workings of yeast suggest that mysterious swaths of molecules - long dismissed as "junk DNA" - may be more important to health and evolution than genes themselves.”
  http://www.boston.com/news/globe/health_science/articles/2007/09/24/dna_unraveled/
  

An example that evolutionists use to claim that evolution can make a new feature appear is the appearance of a cecal in a lizard: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Here are the problems with that claim:

1. 1% of ALL scaled reptiles posses cecal valves, so latent DNA is the most likely answer to how they appeared. Example: Organisms restore latent DNA for features several generations AFTER the feature has disappeared:
   
   • “Here we show that Arabidopsis plants homozygous for recessive mutant alleles of the organ fusion gene HOTHEAD5 (HTH) can inherit allele-specific DNA sequence information hat was not present in the chromosomal genome of their parents but was present in previous generations. This previously undescribed process is shown to occur at all DNA sequence polymorphisms examined and therefore seems to be a general mechanism for extra-genomic inheritance of DNA sequence information. We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.”
     http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7032/abs/nature03380.html
     
   • “Here, we show that a rice triploid and diploid hybridization resulted in stable diploid progenies, both in genotypes and phenotypes, through gene homozygosity. Furthermore, their gene homozygosity can be inherited through 8 generations, and they can convert DNA sequences of other rice varieties into their own. Molecular-marker examination confirmed that this type of genome-wide gene conversion occurred at a very high frequency. Possible mechanisms, including RNA-templated repair of double-strand DNA, are discussed.” http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17502903?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.
     PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DiscoveryPanel.Pubmed_Discovery_RA
     
2. If cecal valves miraculously appeared without latent DNA, evolutionists need to explain in detail how random genetic changes could possible create an exact genetic duplicate of the cecal valve that previously ‘evolved’ by random genetic changes.
   Evolutionists refer to this as ‘convergent evolution,’ which is an absolutely ridiculous premise supported ONLY by the presupposition that evolution is true … so it must have occurred!
   
3. Since the valves supposedly evolved in just 35 years, it should NOT be difficult to find the beginnings of a valve, which might display an actual evolution-in-process event.
   

	“We understand very little about how dissipation of energy lead to the emergence of ordered structures from disordered components in the systems.” —George M Whitesides and Bartosz Grzybowski “Self-assembly at all scales,” Science magazine, March 29, 2002; 295, 5564; Research Library Core, pg 2418. (See PDF)