Two totally different concepts of genes. Both stated by evolutionary biologists.

The modern concept of the gene divides evolution believers into two camps

Old concept: 
"They did not die out, for they are past masters of the survival arts. But do not look for them floating loose in the sea; they gave up that cavalier freedom long ago. Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control.

They are in you and in me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come a long way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines.”  
Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene (1976, 2006)

Modern concept: 
"I think that as a gene-centric view of evolution, the modern synthesis has got causality in biology wrong. Genes, after all, if they’re defined as DNA sequences, are purely passive. DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system through transcription factors, markers of one kind or another, interactions with the proteins. So on its own, DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires." 
Denis Noble, 2014
My comment: Genes, after all, if they’re defined as DNA sequences, are purely passive. What kind of mechanisms and factors are needed in order to get DNA being activated in the cell?

The answer: Epigenetic mechanisms and factors. Gene centric theory of evolution has failed.

Atheists want to maintain the pseudoscientific theory of evolution established by Charles Darwin and touted by Richard Dawkins. That's why they are resisting the progress of science.



Genetic meltdown just in FIVE generations

DNA samples kept at museums reveal how rapidly genetic degradation can happen


Excerpts: "Needless to say, this is making an already bad situation for the Grauer’s gorilla even worse. But while the genetic diversity of these gorillas is plummeting, it has yet to reach the point of no return—a state known as “genetic meltdown,” after which time there isn’t enough diversity left in the gene pool for reproductive viability. There’s still time to bring these apes back from the brink, we just need to act.
Results confirmed a loss of genetic diversity among living Grauer’s gorillas, of which DNA samples were taking from seven individuals. What’s more, an alarming batch of genetic mutations have crept in over the past four to five generations—mutations that are making these gorillas more susceptible to communicable and genetic diseases, and less capable of adapting to environmental changes. Many of these mutations are classified as “Loss of Function” (LoF), which, as the name suggests, happens when a gene loses its evolved function. Over the last 100 years, Grauer’s gorillas have acquired several LoF mutations which, in humans and other related species, are related to changes in immune responses and male fertility. The researchers also detected LoF in genes associated with finger and toe development, which may explain why many living Grauer’s gorillas have fused digits."

My comment: Organisms need genetic rescue because evolution is not happening. And because museums keep a lot of ancient animal bones from previous generations, some scientists seriously try to use that ancient DNA to recover endangered species' genomes:


Excerpt: "One further reservoir of genetic variability has yet to be employed. In museums throughout the world there are vast collections of specimens of species that have been reduced to genetically-impoverished remnant populations in the wild or in captive breeding programs. Those museum specimens are replete with “extinct alleles” in their preserved (though fragmented) DNA. Ancient-DNA sequencing and analysis is becoming so precise, the needed alleles can be identified, reproduced, and reintroduced to the gene pool of the current population, restoring its original genetic diversity. The long-dead can help rescue the needful living."

My comment: 
Mutational meltdown might occur very rapidly, just in five generations. Speciation can also happen just in two generations. Theories about millions of years of evolution are ridiculous fairytales. There is no mechanism for evolution. Every mutation is targeted to useful and functional DNA because there's no junk-DNA. Genetic entropy is a biological fact. Don't get lost.


The Problem of Missing Link deepens - Frauds and misunderstandings

The theory of evolution is just wishful thinking and imagination

This article summarizes recent discoveries about assumed human evolutionary ancestors and points out why there is no such thing.

Frauds and fake fossils

1. Piltdown man

"In 1939, however, two experts, Ralph von Koenigswald and Franz Weidenreich, revealed that both (Peking Man & Java Man) were actually normal human beings. And Ernst Mayr from Harvard University had classified both as human in 1944."

"Java Man was discovered in 1891 by Eugene Dubois and was identified by one tooth, a piece of a skull bone, and a thighbone. Nevermind that the thighbone wasn’t actually found until a year later and 50 feet from where the other two bones were found. No big deal, because Dubois insisted they belonged together. When Dubois couldn’t get agreement from the scientific community of his day, he buried the bones under his house in a suitcase for 23 years before he finally brought them out again. (What!?!) Before his death in 1923, Dubois confessed that Java Man was actually a giant gibbon. Unfortunately, he is still in textbooks and museums labeled as Homo erectus."

4. Nebraska man

Imaginary picture of the Nebraska man
was based on a pig's tooth.
"The evidence for Nebraska Man was used by evolutionists in the famous Scopes evolution trial in Dayton, Tennessee, in 1925. William Jennings Bryan was confronted with a battery of "great scientific experts" who stunned him with the "facts" of Nebraska Man. Mr. Bryan had no retort except to say that he thought the evidence was too scanty and to plead for more time. Naturally, the "experts" scoffed and made a mockery of him. After all, who was he to question the world's greatest scientific authorities?

But, what exactly was the scientific proof for Nebraska Man? The answer is a tooth. That's right; he found one tooth! The top scientists of the world examined this tooth and appraised it as proof positive of a prehistoric race in America. What a classic case of excessive imagination!"

"One of these vertebrae does not belong to Lucy

Lucy, arguably the world’s most famous early human fossil, is not quite all she seems. A careful look at the ancient hominin’s skeleton suggests one bone may actually belong to a baboon."

Science advances

6. Neanderthals and Denisovans


"How can creatures as different in body and mind as present-day humans and their extinct Neanderthal cousins be 99.84 percent identical genetically? Four years after scientists discovered that the two species’ genomes differ by a fraction of a percent, geneticists said on Thursday they have an explanation: the cellular equivalent of “on”/“off” switches that determine whether DNA is activated or not.

Hundreds of Neanderthals’ genes were turned off while the identical genes in today’s humans are turned on, the international team announced in a paper published online in Science. They also found that hundreds of other genes were turned on in Neanderthals, but are off in people living today."

7. Homo floresiensis - Hobbits


"Dwarfism could be a medical or genetic condition and it applies to any adult who is 4'10” or shorter. It is a broad term and includes many genetic abnormalities that could be the underlying cause of the condition. Although sometimes spontaneous, dwarfism has been linked to incestuous breeding especially when it occurs over multiple generations."

8. Australopithecus specimens in general

"In fact, Little Foot's canals were distinctly "ape-like," resembling those of chimpanzees. This suggests that the way Australopithecus moved likely had something in common with chimps, according to the study."

My comment: Modern science is not aware of a mechanism that could be able to turn an ape into a human being. Instead, human genome is rapidly degrading; there are 561,119 gene-disease-association in the human genome at population level. The number of random beneficial mutations is close to ZERO. There is no scientific evidence for evolution. Don't get lost.

p.s. Oh, I forgot Homo Erectus! Never mind, it has been found alive in Brazil. Seriously, microcephaly is a severe disorder and caused by Zika virus or intense inbreeding.


It’s the End of the Gene As You Know It

Scientists now admit: DNA is just passive form of information. It has no control over cellular processes.


Excerpt: "The preferred dogma started to appear in different versions in the 1920s. It was aptly summarized by renowned physicist Erwin Schrödinger in a famous lecture in Dublin in 1943. He told his audience that chromosomes “contain, in some kind of code-script, the entire pattern of the individual’s future development and of its functioning in the mature state.”

Around that image of the code a whole world order of rank and privilege soon became reinforced. These genes, we were told, come in different “strengths,” different permutations forming ranks that determine the worth of different “races” and of different classes in a class-structured society. A whole intelligence testing movement was built around that preconception, with the tests constructed accordingly.

The image fostered the eugenics and Nazi movements of the 1930s, with tragic consequences. Governments followed a famous 1938 United Kingdom education commission in decreeing that, “The facts of genetic inequality are something that we cannot escape,” and that, “different children ... require types of education varying in certain important respects.”

Post-war research sensibly focused more on the biochemistry, but with similar preconceptions. The existence of a powerful code-script seemed to be confirmed with the discovery of the structure of DNA by Watson and Crick in 1953. They revealed how the sequences of components (called nucleotides) in DNA could serve as a template—a code—for a protein, much as a typewriter sequences letters to form words. So the accepted “central dogma” could be conceived as the one-way flow of information from the code in the gene:

DNA template → proteins → developing characteristics;

as if production of the words alone is tantamount to writing the whole “book” of a complex being.

Then came the brilliant technology for sequencing genes (the components or “letters” in the DNA) in the whole genome. Its application, at enormous cost, in the Human Genome Project would, we were told, reveal “what it is to be human.” Extravagant promises were made that genes would soon be found that control human intelligence, social behavior, and complex diseases.

Now, in low-cost, highly mechanized procedures, the search has become even easier. The DNA components—the letters in the words—that can vary from person to person are called single nucleotide polymorphisms, or SNPs. The genetic search for our human definition boiled down to looking for statistical associations between such variations and differences in IQ, education, disease, or whatever.

For years, disappointment followed: Only a few extremely weak associations between SNPs and observable human characteristics could be found. Then another stroke of imagination. Why not just add the strongest weak associations together until a statistically significant association with individual differences is obtained? It is such “polygenic scores,” combining hundreds or thousands of SNPs, varying from person to person, and correlating (albeit weakly) with trait scores such as IQ or educational scores, that form the grounds for the vaulting claims we now witness.

Today, 1930s-style policy implications are being drawn once again. Proposals include gene-testing at birth for educational intervention, embryo selection for desired traits, identifying which classes or “races” are fitter than others, and so on. And clever marketizing now sees millions of people scampering to learn their genetic horoscopes in DNA self-testing kits.

So the hype now pouring out of the mass media is popularizing what has been lurking in the science all along: a gene-god as an entity with almost supernatural powers. Today it’s the gene that, in the words of the Anglican hymn, “makes us high and lowly and orders our estate.”

In her 1984 book, The Ontogeny of Information, the philosopher of science Susan Oyama warned, “Just as traditional thought placed biological forms in the mind of God, so modern thought finds ways of endowing the genes with ultimate formative power.”

In scientific, as well as popular descriptions today, genes “act,” “behave,” “direct,” “control,” “design,” “influence,” have “effects,” are “responsible for,” are “selfish,” and so on, as if minds of their own with designs and intentions.
The long-suppressed logic of Johansenn that has stalked the gene-god for decades has come home to roost. Scientists now understand that the information in the DNA code can only serve as a template for a protein. It cannot possibly serve as instructions for the more complex task of putting the proteins together into a fully functioning being, no more than the characters on a typewriter can produce a story.

This can seem confusing to those of us indoctrinated in the idea that there must be a set of genetic instructions prior to development: If not in the DNA code, then where? By the 1980s, research findings started to turn that notion on its head.

It is such discoveries that are turning our ideas of genetic causation inside out. We have traditionally thought of cell contents as servants to the DNA instructions. But, as the British biologist Denis Noble insists in an interview with the writer Suzan Mazur,“The modern synthesis has got causality in biology wrong … DNA on its own does absolutely nothing until activated by the rest of the system … DNA is not a cause in an active sense. I think it is better described as a passive data base which is used by the organism to enable it to make the proteins that it requires.”"

My comment: This article was written by an evolution believer. He doesn't tell (or doesn't want to tell) anything about epigenetic mechanisms and factors that control the DNA. Instead he fabricates imaginary stories about organisms that evolved without DNA. How ridiculous. Pseudoscientists are so lost with their theories. But as we can see, the traditional concept of a 'gene' is changing. The cell uses passive DNA for building functional RNA molecules. Because epigenetic mechanisms have control over the DNA and cellular processes, it's obvious that any change in organisms are due to epigenetic regulation of pre-existing biological information or loss of it. There's no junk-DNA. But mutational burden is an observed fact. That's why genetic entropy is an inevitable phenomenon. Evolution never happened.


Top 10 Reasons why evolution can't happen

Observed evidences strongly contradict with textbook versions of the theory of evolution

1. Random mutations result in corruption of genetic information. There are 628,685  gene-disease associations in human genome at population level but the number of random fully beneficial mutations is zero.

2.There's no junk-DNA in genomes.

3. Every biologist understands that mutational burden (genetic load) is so heavy, that without junk-DNA evolution will become a destructive process because harmful genetic mutations are always targeted to useful and functional DNA strands.

4. Organisms experience ecological adaptation and variation due to epigenetic mechanisms and factors. Every claimed example of evolution has been due to epigenetic regulation of pre-existing biological information. These are for example, blind cave fish, Darwin's Finch beak changes,Italian wall lizard, bacterial antibiotic resistance, lactose tolerance, high altitude adaptation etc.
Hey, let me be alone. I'm evolving into a whale.
5. Epigenetic modifications often result in subtle DNA errors. Mechanisms are already well understood (link 1 and link 2).

6. DNA has no control over cellular processes. DNA is just passive type of biological information. It does nothing without epigenetic control and regulation. A stem cell has the same DNA sequences as a differentiated cell but the stem cell has no identity or a task. It has to be programmed epigenetically in order that it could have an identity.

7. Organismal variation (so called speciation) can happen only inside a genus (a kind). Speciation happens due to epigenetic mechanisms driven by diet type, climate, stressors, sensory stimuli, pheromones, toxicants etc. The more variation, the more information loss.

8. Endogenous retroviruses is a necessary defense mechanism for a developing embryo and they are accurately controlled by the innate immune system.

9. At least 40,000 species are going extinct every year during our lifetime. They all have a common denominator: Loss of genetic diversity.

10. There is no scientific (observed) evidence for the theory of evolution.


Endogenous Retroviruses - Evolution or Design?

Recent discoveries of retroviruses point to Design


Excerpt: "A fertilized human egg may seem like the ultimate blank slate. But within days of fertilization, the growing mass of cells activates not only human genes but also viral DNA lingering in the human genome from ancient infections.

Now researchers at the Stanford University School of Medicine have found that the early human cells produce viral proteins, and even become crowded with what appear to be assembled viral particles. These viral proteins could manipulate some of the earliest steps in human development, affecting gene expression and even possibly protecting the cells from further viral infection.

Now the Stanford researchers have shown for the first time that viral proteins are abundantly present in the developing human embryo and assemble into what appear to be viral particles in electron microscopy images. By following up with additional studies in human embryonic cells grown in vitro, scientists showed that these viral proteins affect gene expression in the developing embryo and may protect the cells from infection by other viruses.

Battle or symbiosis?

But it’s not clear whether this sequence of events is the result of thousands of years of co-existence, a kind of evolutionary symbiosis, or if it represents an ongoing battle between humans and viruses.

“Does the virus selfishly benefit by switching itself on in these early embryonic cells?” said Grow. “Or is the embryo instead commandeering the viral proteins to protect itself? Can they both benefit? That’s possible, but we don’t really know.”

Much remains to be known, but it’s clear the fates of both are intertwined within days of conception. “Our early human development is unique and depends on genes and DNA sequences we picked up recently in our evolutionary history,” said study co-author Renee Reijo Pera, PhD, who is a former professor of obstetrics and gynecology at Stanford. She is now on the faculty of Montana State University. “What we’re learning now is that our ‘junk DNA,’ including some viral genes, is recycled for development in the first few days and weeks of life.”

Grow and his colleagues found that some HERVK viruses are transcribed into RNA — the first step in making proteins based on the blueprint provided by DNA— in 3- to 4-day-old embryos. This viral activation coincides with the activation of other key human genes in the embryo. The researchers then used electron microscopy to observe what appear to be intact viral particles in human blastocysts, which arise within five to six days after fertilization.

HERVK also encodes a viral protein called Rec, which binds to viral RNA transcripts made from DNA sequences, and escorts the transcripts to the ribosomes in the cells’ cytoplasm to be made into proteins.

Researchers found that Rec not only affected the expression of viral genes, but it also binds to many RNAs made from human genes. Rec also modulates the RNAs’ interactions with the ribosomes. Finally, the presence of Rec in human cells stimulated an immune response that increased the amount of a surface-bound human protein called IFITM1, which protects the cells from viral infection.

‘A potentially beneficial strategy’

“There is a long-standing debate within the field of genome evolution,” Grow said. “Why retain so much seemingly useless and repetitive DNA within our genomes? Our results demonstrate a tangible and physiologically relevant phenotype — improved antiviral immunity. This clearly implicates HERVK expression in the embryo as a potentially beneficial strategy.”

Another study confirms that endogenous retroviruses is a mechanism controlled by the immune system:


Excerpt:"Considering this, transcript reversion-mediated interference with related viruses may be a novel type of antiviral immunity in vertebrates. Understanding the biological significance of transcript reversion will provide novel insights into host defenses against viral infections."

"In complex with a PIWI clade argonoute protein, piRNA targets transposons with complimentary sequences for transcriptional and post-transcriptional silencing.

My comment: Virus infections could be a catastrophe for a developing embryo. That's why there has to be a solid mechanism that protects embryonic cells. This is done by accurate control by the immune system that uses viral dna sequences as a memory and produces short piRNA molecules for accurate expression or silencing of those viral DNA sections. There's no junk-DNA in the genome because DNA is just passive information but it can be modified and recycled for other purposes. Endogenous retrovirus strands are epigenetically controlled and regulated. Disruptions in this regulation might result in diseases. Both exogenous and endogenous retroviruses point to design, not to selfish genes. The theory of evolution is the most serious heresy of our time.



Next version of evolutionary theory: Humans have evolved from dogs

Humans are genetically closer to dogs than chimps according to latest research

Science is in rapid progress. Still last week, evolution believers were all certain that we have evolved from apes. For this idea, scientific evidence was clear; both apes and humans have the same gene defect that prevents synthesis of vitamin C in our cells. We also have the same coat gene as apes, but our version is just broken. Scientific evidence was crystal clear, wasn't it?

However, science corrects itself, and recently, great and mighty science has found scientific evidence that we have descended from dogs. That is to say, scientific research has found that humans and dogs have as many as 350 similar genetic diseases:

Excerpt: "There is increased interest in dogs as a model for studying human diseases because dogs share more than 350 diseases with humans – from hip dysplasia to lymphoma – and similar pathways and genes often underlie these shared diseases, according to the paper."

Genetically, we are 95% similar to dogs according to the latest study.


Excerpt: "It turns out that genetically, dogs and humans are quite similar, having about 95% of their DNA in common."

According to a more detailed analysis, our genetic similarity to chimpanzees has dropped to 84 percent.

In this way science corrects itself. Scientists have already found evidence that dog and human skulls share significant similarities:


Excerpt: ""Dogs can serve as a model for skull growth and shape determination because the genetic conservation between dogs and humans makes it highly likely that craniofacial development is regulated similarly between both species," Dr. Schoenebeck said."
Some dogs have evolved to look like humans. This is clear scientific evidence and proves that humans have evolved from dogs. 

If you are not able to accept scientific progress, Richard Dawkins has a message to you: 

“It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane."

Oh no. Seriously, the theory of evolution is the most absurd and ridiculous theory of all time.