Back to main page

Evolution is a scientific joke PART 2

-Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution and races and adaptation?-
-Nobel prize winning experiment of 2018 (Darwin in a test tube)-
-How long does it take to fix two beneficial mutations in a single gene?-
-Does genetic engineering prove evolution?-
-Fusion of the second chromosome in humans-
-Biology can't live without evolution-
-Useless Evolution #1 : SARS-
-Useless Evolution #2 : The Domestication of Wheat-
-Useless Evolution #3 : Bacteria resistance-
-Useless Evolution #4 : fat (With the dumbest article in the history of mankind)-
-What else left to debunk-
-You are going to burn in hell, Go figure =) -


After I made my "Evolution is a scientific joke" article so many people were not convinced, and some said I skipped the most important parts of the theory, still hoping that this theory isn't a joke, so for those who still want to cry more, here is part 2 with even stronger evidence of the dumbness of the theory.

Macro-evolution and Micro-evolution and races and adaptation

I got asked once, if evolution is wrong, then why there is many human races? the answer is that evolution has nothing to do with races in the first place, races are just adaptation within the gene pool, but evolutionist being dumb calls it "Micro-"evolution"" to mislead people, so why for example there is people with dark skin color, and people with white skin color, while indeed they are both humans?

The answer is adaptation ^_^ here check this map:

Notice that the further from equator you go the less dark skin you get, why is that? the reason why skin gets dark is because of melanin level in group of cells known as melanocytes which are skin cells, so how can this be an adaptation? because the sun in the equator is hotter and stays for longer times it can be so damaging to the cells (It can even lead to cancer) that face it for long times, so the melanin works as a sheild to protect the cells, and this is so useful for people who live there, so dark skin people have much better ability on staying under the sun then people with bright skin, but why some people have bright skin? same story, they live in a place far from equator which mean the sun is less to face them or their cells, but this time this is damaging, as cells need the sun to produce vitamin D which is very very important, and so melanin levels are low for the skin to catch more of the sun light, that's why people with bright skin can live without much sun unlike people with dark skin, and that's just one change, there are so many differnces for so many reasons.

So because of what I just explained racist people can shut their stupid mouth up, since there is no different between them and others!!

Now back to the topic of evolution, since we now know that organisms can change to adapt to its environment what has evolution to do with this? well nothing, but when Darwin went to the Galapagos islands and saw the different shapes of bird beaks like the one in this image (that I am sure you saw before):

These differences lead them to believe that he found evolution proof, but in fact it is just adaptation, as when the food is close to the ground the bird has short beak, and when the food is inside the ground the bird has long beak, Darwin didn't know this, as the composition of the gene pool to the same species was only understood after a century of writing his book "On the Origin of Species", so now we understand that the genetic strand (DNA) of these birds, provides different forms of beaks, because of a protein called Bone morphogenetic protein 4 (Bmp4 for short) like in this paper, I quote:

We found that expression of Bmp4 in the mesenchyme of the upper beaks strongly correlated with deep and broad beak morphology.

Darwin didn't understand any of what I just said, he only depended on a primitive superficial vision, and so just like that we got "micro-evolution" and started dreaming about making this into Macroevolution, but the fact that we didn't observe any speciation so far is a proof for the falseness of that idea, the bird (Finch) example is just one example that evolutionist show, there are many, but you now got the knowledge to deal with them, but for the sake of confirming, lets take another example, also look at how cute this bird is ^_^:

I think you have heard about bacteria resisting antibiotics right? now think for a sec, if bacteria managed to evolve to resist antibiotics wont humanity be doomed? thankfully evolution is a joke, and bacteria don't develope resistence for antibiotics outside their gene pool, a good example for this is Malaria parasite when it resisted chloroquine by losing a part of its DNA, I quote from this paper:

In the same experiments, stepwise chloroquine pressure on the transformed 106/1 parasites eventually selected a resistant line that had lost the transferred DNA and had undergone a single K76I point mutation in the PfCRT encoded by the endogenous (chromosomal) gene

You may say, but a mutation happened, doesn't this mean it evolved? the answer is no, as this new resistant Malaria disappeared (or decreased a lot) after not using chloroquine for a long time, and original Malaria came back, as you can see in this paper from 2015 (the dates are important), I quote:

Out of 99 clinical samples collected in 2013, prevalence of the mutant pfcrt 76T gene stood at 41 %.
This could primarily be driven by diminished use of CQ in the study area in line with the official policy. Studies to establish prevalence of the pfcrt 76T gene could be expanded countrywide to establish the CQ sensitivity status and predict a date when CQ may be re-introduced as part of malaria chemotherapy.

To another topic:

Nobel prize winning experiment of 2018 (Darwin in a test tube)

Lets explain the experiment, a quote from this article:

US scientists Frances Arnold and George Smith and British researcher Gregory Winter won the Nobel Chemistry Prize on Wednesday for applying the principles of evolution to develop proteins used in everything from new biofuels to to the world's best-selling drug.

Quote from this article:

Arnold directed an enzyme's evolution by introducing genetic mutations to create multiple variants of a chosen enzyme. She would then see the effect each mutation had and choose the variants that could prove to be useful, such as one that could operate in a solvent, rather than a water-based environment.

I quote from Sara Snogerup Linse:

What they have done is to really speed up the evolution, this nature has had billions of years, but now you want the process to be possible in may be a few weeks or year or a something in the laboratory.

So what the experiment does is basicly speed up evolution of billions of years to happen in weeks to a year time, so what has the result?

The result is, in spite of all this pressing and mutating, that kind of bacteria didn't change into another kind, not only that, but not a single functional protein emerged, not only that, but not even a single enzyme emerged, the only thing that happened is the existing enzymes become more efficient within the same species, I quote from Nobal prize official website:

For several years, she had tried to change an enzyme called subtilisin so that rather than catalysing chemical reactions in a water-based solution, it would work in an organic solvent, dimethylformamide (DMF). Now she created random changes – mutations – in the enzyme’s genetic code and then intro- duced these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.
She then selected the variant of subtilisin that was most effective in breaking down casein in a solution with 35 per cent DMF. She subsequently introduced a new round of random mutations in this subtilisin, which yielded a variant that worked even better in DMF.
In the third generation of subtilisin she found a variant that worked 256 times better in DMF than the original enzyme. This variant of the enzyme had a combination of ten different mutations, the benefits of which no one could have worked out in advance.
these mutated genes into bacteria that produced thousands of different variants of subtilisin.

But you may ask, what happened is an improvement for the bacteria, which is what evolution is all about, sadly that's not all of it, I quote from this article:

modified enzymes are poor, weak things compared to natural enzymes, even with the best of protein engineers’ efforts. We are forcing enzymes to perform in ways they were not designed to perform.

So its not an improvement after all, so a billions of years of evolution didn't do a thing, infact lets ask, why they didn't make the enzyme from from scratch? I quote from Sara Snogerup:

It is still not possible with the knowledge based today to design an enzyme from scratch.

Ok but what's the difference then between evolution in nature and evolution in lab? I quote:

In nature its rather random process, mutations happen by chance, maybe due to UV radiation or something, where in the laboratory it was combination of knowladge based, you have to have some idea on which positions to vary then add random mess on top of that.

Nice ^_^, that's how experiments that prove evolution wrong, proves it right, I quote from a book titled "What Darwin Got Wrong" by Jerry Fodor, Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini :

This is not a book about God; nor about intelligent design; nor about creationism. Neither of us is into any of those. We thought we'd best make that clear from the outset
I will say nature has no goal ... where in the directed evolution the scientist defines the goal, I want to break this point or make this point ...

That because they are both atheists, I continue same book:

because our main contention in what follows will be that there is something wrong - quite possibly fatally wrong - with the theory of natural selection

no comment, into the next topic:

How long does it take to fix two beneficial mutations in a single gene?

I quote from this paper:

give the distribution of the time until some individual in a population has experienced two prespecified mutations and the time until this mutant phenotype becomes fixed in the population
Consistent with recent experimental observations for Drosophila, we find that a few million years is sufficient, but for humans with a much smaller effective population size, this type of change would take >100 million years.

Infact, this paper was made to support the theory, I quote:

we use these results to expose flaws in some of Michael Behe's arguments concerning mathematical limits to Darwinian evolution.

huh, now its up to you to calculate how long it will take for 60 million (not an accurate number) mutations between humans and the "common descent", 60,000,000 year * 100,000,000 year = evolution is a joke.

I quote from the book titled : "Acquiring Genomes: A Theory Of The Origin Of Species" by evolutionist Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan:

Speciation, whether in the remote Galapagos, in the laboratorycages of the drosophilosophers, or in the crowded sediments of thepaleontologists, still has never been directly traced.

Does genetic engineering prove evolution?

Short answer : No, long answer : we didn't see any genetic engineering attemet that changed the species kind to another kind, Genetic modified cows are still cows, same with anything else, I quote from this paper:

Microevolution looks at adaptations that concern only the survival of the fittest, not the arrival of the fittest.
As Goodwin (1995) points out, ‘‘the origin of species — Darwin’s problem — remains unsolved.’’

Lets end this topic with a quote from the Nobel winning Ernst Chain about evolution theory:

it can hardly be called a theory.

Oops, sorry ^_^

Fusion of the second chromosome in humans

The title makes you feel like this is the smartest proof for evolution, but after this section you will understand that its just another joke, make sure you at least have enough knowladge about what chromosomes are.

What this proof is about? evolutionists claim that because chimpanzees got 48 of chromosomes unlike humans 46 chromosomes, so a fusion between two chromosomes must of happened, and that's what they "found" on the second human chromosome.

Now before I start debunking that, lets first understand that this, is just a way to mislead people, as the number of chromosomes doesn't mean anything, for example potatoes got the same number 48 chromosomes as chimpanzees, so why not from potatoes to humans (evolupotato theory ^_^), or Guppy fish that has same number 46 chromosomes as humans, in short, the number of chromosomes has nothing to do with evolution, but we will debunk it anyway.

It is worth noting that it only used to be a proof before The Human Genome Project in 2003, after it we understood very well the DNA sequences of the 2nd chromosome within the human genes, now every researcher in the field of genetics knows that at the end of each chromosome there is a sequence in the order "TTAGGG" repeated thousands of times.

This sequence protects the chromosome from destruction, if two chromosomes merged, this location must be filled sequences of "TTAGGG", but indeed what was found I quote:

At least 24 potentially functional genes and 16 pseudogenes reside in the 614-kb of sequence surrounding the fusion site and paralogous segments on other chromosomes.

Studies that support this evidence, state that they didn't found the required number of TTAGGG sequence, meaning no sign of fusion happened, another debunk of this idea is the centromere as if they were two chromosomes that merged we must have two centromeres, but we don't, evolutionist tried to hide this fact by founding a sequence that suggest an old centromere, but we found out that this place doesn't contain the alphoid DNA (Couldn't found a Wikipedia page so) I quote:

The alphoid DNA family is composed of tandemly repeated sequences whose organization is chromosome specific. Under stringent conditions of hybridization, subsets of these sequences localize specifically to the centromeric region of a given chromosome.

A paper stated this, I quote:

The surprising results showed that the vast majority of the probes did not recognize their corresponding homologous chromosomes.
specific for the human X chromosome, was the only sequence detecting its corresponding chromosome in all three species.

To fix this problem they:

suggest that alphoid centromeric sequences underwent a very rapid evolution.

^_^ I can feel your pain !


First go and read about what Retrovirus does, then come back to finish this, so what evolutionist say, the retrovirus genetic code is found at almost same place in both humans and chimpanzees genome, therefor the virus mostly have effected the "common descent" of the two, but the fact is, this is just a functional DNA sequence as stated in this paper, note that any problem with protein p53 leads to cancer.

Also the story of this virus effecting the "common descent" doesn't make up, as we know that cells die if a virus effected it, in what's know as Apoptosis, and so it is impossible for a effected sperm to pass, but now how can we explain the existence of this DNA in us? well it is not only us and chimpanzees that have it, in fact different animals that has no relation with humans or chimpanzees based on evolution, have retrovirus DNA in them, so this is a problem for evolutionist, as how that's possible to happen? proof of that can be found in this paper, I quote:

Thus two closely related retroviruses infect an ape (gibbon) and a marsupial (koala), and two closely related ERV genomes are found in a carnivore (fox) and a ruminant (sheep).

So you should accept that this is a normal thing and it has nothing to do with evolution, or say it is a mistake in the theory, as this can be used against the theory ^_^, infact lets do it.

Scientists have found a retrovirus DNA in chimpanzees and gorillas and old world monkey species but didn't found it in humans, which is PtERV1 retrovirus, and because the "common decent" came from gorillas and both chimpanzees and gorillas have it, so the common decent had it? so why humans doesn't? well because evolution is a joke, here is a paper that states that, I quote:

shows a monophyletic origin for the gorilla and chimpanzee endogenous retroviruses
Expansions of Retroviral Insertions within the Genomes of African Great Apes but Not Humans...

Believing in something, and proving it, are two different things, hope you understand that evolutionists ^_^ lets move to another topic:

Biology can't live without evolution

Get yourself something to drink, as in this section, we will prove to you that evolution is 100% useless.

A book titled "Science, Evolution, and Creationism" talks about how evolution became science, and creationism is not science and shows 2 useful things that happened because of evolution, and the short edition added another one, so lets see them:

Useless Evolution #1 : SARS

I quote from the book:

In March 2003 a team of researchers ... received samples of a virus isolated from the tissues of a SARS patient Using a new technology known as a DNA microarray within 24 hours the researchers had identified the virus as a previously unknown member of a particular family of viruses --- a result confirmed by other researchers using different techniques. Immediately, work began on a blood test to identify people with the disease (so they could be quarantined), on treatments for the disease, and on vaccines to prevent infection with the virus.
An understanding of evolution was essential in the identification of the SARS virus. The genetic material in the virus was similar to that of other viruses because it had evolved from the same ancestor virus.

Now what has this to do with evolution? nothing, a virus genetic material looks similar to another virus doesn't mean they evolved from each other, and even if that happened, how can founding two similar viruses be considered a cause of evolution? doesn't make sense.

Also for the vaccine part, the first vaccine was Smallpox vaccine, which was made 1796, way before evolution, Next we got:

Useless Evolution #2 : The Domestication of Wheat

In the same book, a section titled "The Domestication of Wheat", speaks about how humans 11,000 years ago in Middel East :

These early farmers began saving seeds from plants with particularly favorable traits and planting those seeds in the next growing eason. ... farmers over many generations modified the traits of wild wheat so that seeds remained on the plant when ripe and could easily be separated from their hulls.

So what has this to do with evolution? Well:

Over the next few millennia, people around the world used similar processes of evolutionary change to transform many other wild plants and animals...

Now my question is, how could people for 1,000s of years use evolution without knowing it, in fact what has evolution to do with all of this -_- I started to think evolutionist are crazy, next topic please:

Useless Evolution #3 : Bacteria resistance

From the shorter version of the book We got:

When a bacterium undergoes a genetic change that increases its ability to resist the effects of an antibiotic, that bacterium can survive and produce more copies of itself while nonresistant bacteria are being killed. ... have evolved resistance to an increasing number of antibiotics and have become serious problems throughout the world.

Ok what has that to do with evolution? Well:

Knowledge of how evolution leads to increased resistance will be critical in controlling the spread of infectious diseases

We debunked that before, but lets simply say it again, evolution has nothing to do with bacteria developing resistance, you can debunk that just by looking at how bacteria does do, It develops resistance against almost every antibiotics, like it already knows all of them, so how can that be a cause of evolution? but in reality dumb evolutionist themselves say that bacteria are: (please, hold yourself.)

I won't debunk that, Infact saying that bacteria is smarter then evolutionist isn't a bad idea. ^_^

Now I don't want waste more time on bacteria resisting mechanism, here is a paper paper that talks about a Beta-lactamase made out of 263 amino acid which hydrolysis antibiotics such as the penicillins, now did you see any failure in making this beta-lactamase? how could this enzyme be envoloved? this is just one mechanism for resisting antibiotics out of many.

More Ernst Chain (who worked on penicillin) Quotes:

Ernst Chain, called natural selection by chance mutations a "hypothesis based on no evidence and irreconcilable with the facts" ... it amazes me that they are swallowed so uncritically and readily [source p. 136.]

Quote from Selman Waksman who won the nobel prise for his work on antibiotics:

The concept of the « struggle for existence » ... the effects assigned by Darwin to higher forms of life ... All the discussion of a "struggle for existence" in which antibiotics are supposed to play a part, is merely a figment of the imagination

Philip Skell who is sometimes called "the father of carbene chemistry", wrote to the scientist journal an article titled "Why Do We Invoke Darwin?" , I quote:

I would tend to agree. Certainly, my own research with antibiotics during World war II received no guidance from insights provided by Darwinian evolution. Nor did Alexander Fleming's discovery of bacterial inhibition by penicillin. I recently asked more than 70 eminent researchers if they would have done their work differently if they had thought Darwin's theory was wrong. The responses were all the same: No.
I also examined the oustanding biodiscoveries of the past century: the discovery of the double helix; the characterization of the ribosome; the mapping of genomes; research on medications and drug reactions; improvements in food production and sanitation; the development of new surgeries; and others. I even queried biologists working in areas where one would expect the Darwinian paradigm to have most benefited research, such as the emergence of resistance to antibiotics and pesticides. Here, as elsewhere, I found that Darwin's theory had provided no discermible guidance, but was brought in, after the breakthroughs, as an interseting narrative gloss.

"but was brought in, after the breakthroughs", now how I am going to explain that to stupid evolution followers, I continue:

From my conversations with leading researchers it had became clear that modern experimental biology gains its strength from the availability of new instruments and methodologies, not from an immersion in historical biology.

Aka evolution is useless, It is worth noting that the book that we are debunking has been replied by Philip himself, I quote:

The public should view with profound alarm the unnecessary and misguided reintroduction of speculative historical, philosophical, and religious ideas into the realms of experimental science, coming from various sources, including this current publication of National Academy of Sciences.

We will explain the relation between science and religion later, It is also worth noting that Philip got attacked after that publication, we will leave the talk about evolution monkey attacks for another article.

Useless Evolution #4 : fat (With the dumbest article in the history of mankind)

An article by Scientific American (the funniest so far) I quote:

Evolution should be taught as a practical tool for understanding drug resistance and the price of fish
Most important, Darwin’s legacy has a direct bearing on how society makes public policy and even, at times, on how we choose to run our lives. Overfishing of mature adults selects for smaller fish (and higher prices at the supermarket),

I don't feel my brain cells anymore, so something we knew for ages didn't come to our mind until evolution?

and excessive use of antibiotics leads, by natural selection, to drug resistance,

We debunked that, next:

Many modern diseases—obesity, diabetes and autoimmune disorders—come about, in part, because of the mismatch between our genes and an environment that changes more quickly than human genomes can evolve. Understanding this disparity may help convince a patient to make a change in diet to better conform to the demands of a genetic heritage that leaves us unable to accommodate excess, refined carbohydrates and saturated fats from a steady intake of linguine alfredo and the like.

If you think I need to explain the level of stupidity that article reached, then I am sorry for you, I can't do anything to help.

What else left to debunk

Alot, but I skipped almost all of them, thinking that what I just said is enough for people who really want to know the truth about this joke, If you still believes in it, then part 3 won't do much, as the arguments that I will put there are only for fools, I am not kidding, the rest of the proofs about evolution (like parallel evolution or co-evolution or directed evolution or any other evolution type) are so dumb, so stupid, that It will be disrespecting for a reader to read, so be respectful and leave the stupid theory.

However this is not the last article about evolution, I will be making an article about "The effects of evolution" and I will talk in it about what evolution caused in this world, why "99%" of scientists believe it, and how WW2 started only because of it, as we will see in that article, now a message to atheists (who knows everything about Islam but didn't become muslims):

You are going to burn in hell, Go figure =)

Evolution is just one thing about agnosticism, there are so many stuff I am going to debunk in this website, but I know there are people out there who won't believe in a God even if I made a journal debunking every claim they come up with, and that fact alone is a prove for God :

From My signs I will turn away the unrightfully, arrogant in the land, so that even if they witness every sign they would not believe it. If they see the path of righteousness, they shall not take it as a path; but if they see the path of error, they shall take it for their path because they belied Our signs and were inattentive towards them. [Quran chapter 7 verse 146]