The Great Mistake
The progressive, evolution story
is one huge MISTAKE
which, ironically,
depends on MISTAKES
as its mechanism …
Mistake
– upon mistake
– upon mistake
– upon mistake
So that the whole human genome
is created from billions of mistakes.
If, after reading this, you still believe in the progressive evolution story – you will believe anything.
EVOLUTION …..
What is the truth about Darwinian, progressive (microbes to human) evolution?
Although we are told it is an irrefutable, scientific fact …..
the real fact is, as we will show later, there is no credible mechanism for such progressive evolution.
So what was the evolutionary idea that Darwin popularised?
Darwin believed that there was unlimited variability in the gene pool of all creatures and plants.
However, the changes possible were well known by selective breeders to be strictly limited.
This is because the changes seen in selective breeding are due to the shuffling, deletion and emphasis, or duplication, of genetic information already existing in the gene pool (micro-evolution). There is no viable mechanism for creating new, beneficial, genetic information required to create entirely new body parts … anatomical structures, biological systems, organs etc. (macro-evolution).
Darwin rashly ignored the limits which were well known to breeders (even though he selectively bred pigeons himself, and should have known better). He simply extrapolated the strictly limited, minor changes observed in selective breeding to major, unlimited, progressive changes able to create new structures, organs etc. through natural selection, over an alleged multi-million year timescale.
Of course, the length of time involved made no difference, the existing, genetic information could not increase of its own accord, no matter how long the timescale.
That was a gigantic flaw in Darwinism, and opponents of Darwin’s ideas tried to argue that changes were limited, as selective breeding had demonstrated.
But because Darwinism had acquired a status more akin to an ideology than purely, objective science, belief in the Darwinian idea outweighed the verdict of observational and experimental science, and classical Darwinism became firmly established as scientific orthodoxy for nearly a century.
Opponents continued to argue all this time, that Darwinism was unscientific nonsense, but they were ostracised and dismissed as cranks, weirdoes or religious fanatics.
Finally however, it was discovered that the opponents of Darwin were perfectly correct – and that constructive, genetic changes (progressive, macro-evolution) require new, additional, genetic information.
This looked like the ignominious end of Darwinism, as there was no credible, natural mechanism able to create new, constructive, genetic information. And Darwinism should have been heading for the dustbin of history.
Darwin’s idea that a single, celled microbe could transform itself into a human and every other living thing, through natural selection over millions of years, had always been totally bonkers. That it is, or ever could have been, regarded as a great ‘scientific’ theory, beggars belief.
However, rather than ditch the whole idea, the vested interests in Darwinism had become so great, with numerous, lifelong careers and an ideological agenda which had become dependant on the Darwinian belief system, a desperate attempt was made to rescue it from its justified demise.
A mechanism had to be invented to explain the origin of new, constructive information.
That invented mechanism was ‘mutations’. Mutations are … literally, genetic, copying MISTAKES.
The general public had already been convinced that classical Darwinism was a scientific fact, and that anyone who questioned it was a crank, so all that had to be done, as far as the public was concerned, was to give the impression that the theory had simply been refined and updated in the light of modern science.
The fact that classical Darwinism had been wrong all along, and was fatally flawed from the outset was kept quiet. This meant that the opponents of Darwinism, who had been right all along, and were the real champions of science, continued to be vilified as cranks and scorned by the mass media and establishment. Ideology and vested interests took precedence over common sense and proper science.
The new developments were simply portrayed as the evolution and development of the theory. The impression was given that there was nothing wrong with the idea of progressive (macro) evolution, it had simply ‘evolved’ and ‘improved’ in the light of greater knowledge.
A sort of progressive evolution of the idea of evolution.
This new, ‘improved’ Darwinism became known as Neo-Darwinism.
So what is Neo-Darwinism? And did it really solve the fatal flaws of the Darwinian idea?
Neo Darwinism is progressive, macro evolution – as Darwin had proposed, but based on the ludicrous idea that random mutations (accidental, genetic, copying mistakes) selected by natural selection, can provide the constructive, genetic information capable of creating entirely new features, anatomical structures, organs, and biological systems. In other words, it is macro-evolution based on a belief in the total progression from microbes to man through billions of random, genetic, copying MISTAKES, over millions of years.
However, there is no evidence for it whatsoever, and it is should be classified as unscientific nonsense which defies logic, the laws of probability and Information Theory.
Mutations are not good, they are something to be feared, not celebrated as an agent of improvement or progression.
The vast majority of mutations are harmful, they cause illness, cancer and deformities, which is not surprising. It is precisely what we would expect from mistakes.
If you throw a spanner into the works of a machine, you wouldn’t expect it to improve the operation of the machine.
Ironically, evolutionists fear mutations as much as everyone else. You won’t get evolutionists volunteering to subject themselves or their families to mutagenic agents, you won’t get them deliberately going to live near chemical or nuclear plants – in order to give their idea of progressive evolution a helping hand.
Evolutionists know that mutations are very risky and likely to be harmful, and not something anyone should desire.
Yet, perversely, they still present them as the agent responsible for creating the constructive, genetic information which, they claim, progressively transformed the first living cells into every living thing that has ever lived, including humans. Incredible!
People are sometimes confused, because they know that ‘micro’-evolution is an observable fact, which everyone accepts. Disgracefully, evolutionists cynically exploit that confusion by citing obvious examples of micro-evolution such as: the Peppered Moth, Darwin’s finches, so-called superbugs etc., as evidence of macro-evolution.
Of course such examples are not evidence of macro-evolution at all. The public is simply being hoodwinked and lied to, and it is a disgrace to science. There are no observable examples or evidence of macro-evolution and no examples of a mutation, or a series of mutations capable of creating new anatomical structures, organs etc. and that is a fact. It is no wonder that W R Thompson stated in the preface to the 1959 centenary edition of Darwin’s Origin of the Species, that … the success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity.
Micro-evolution is simply the small changes which take place, through natural selection or selective breeding, but only within the strict limits of the built-in variability of the existing gene pool. Any constructive changes outside the extent of the existing gene pool requires a credible mechanism for the creation of new, beneficial, genetic information, that is essential for macro evolution.
Micro evolution does not involve or require the creation of any new, genetic information. So micro evolution and macro evolution are entirely different. There is no connection between them at all, whatever evolutionists may claim.
Once people fully understand that the differences they see in various dogs breeds, for example, are merely an example of limited micro-evolution (selection of existing genetic information) and nothing to do with progressive macro-evolution, they begin to realise that they have been fed an incredible story.
A dog will always remain a dog, it can never be selectively bred into some other creature, the extent of variation is constrained by the limitations of the existing, genetic information in the gene pool of the dog genus, and evolutionists know that.
To explain further…. Neo-Darwinian, macro evolution is the ridiculous idea that everything in the genome of humans and every living thing past and present (apart from the original genetic information in the very first living cell) is the result of millions of genetic copying mistakes….. mutations of mutations …. of mutations…. of mutations …. and so on – and on – and on.
In other words, Neo-Darwinism proposes that the complete genome (every scrap of genetic information in the DNA) of every living thing that has ever lived was created by a long series … of mistakes … upon previous mistakes …. upon previous mistakes …. upon previous mistakes etc. etc.
If we look at the whole picture we soon realise that what is actually being proposed by evolutionists is that, apart from the original information in the first living cell (and evolutionists have yet to explain how that original information magically arose?) – every additional scrap of genetic information for all – the biological features, anatomical structures, systems and processes that exist, or have ever existed in living things, such as:
skin, bones, bone joints, shells, flowers, leaves, wings, scales, muscles, fur, hair, teeth, claws, toe and finger nails, horns, beaks, nervous systems, blood, blood vessels, brains, lungs, hearts, digestive systems, vascular systems, liver, kidneys, pancreas, bowels, immune systems, senses, eyes, ears, sex organs, sexual reproduction, sperm, eggs, pollen, the process of metamorphosis, marsupial pouches, marsupial embryo migration, mammary glands, hormone production, melanin etc. …. have been created from scratch, by an incredibly long series of small, accumulated mistakes … mistake – upon mistake – upon mistake – upon mistake – over and over again, millions of times.
That is … every body part, system and process of all living things are the result of literally billions of genetic MISTAKES of MISTAKES, accumulated over many millions of years.
All this from an original, single, living cell.
If, for example, there is no genetic information for bones in the original living cell, how could copying mistakes of the original, limited information in such a single cell produce such entirely new information?
Incredibly, what we are asked to believe is that something like a vascular system, or reproductive organs, developed in small, random, incremental steps, with every step being the result of a copying mistake, and with each step being able to provide a significant survival or reproductive advantage in order to be preserved and become dominant in the gene pool. Incredible!
If you believe that … you will believe anything.
Even worse, evolutionists have yet to cite a single example of a positive, beneficial, mutation which adds constructive information to the genome of any creature. Yet they expect us to believe that we have been converted from an original, single living cell into humans by an accumulation of billions of beneficial mutations (mistakes).
Conclusion:
Progressive, microbes-to-man evolution is impossible – there is no credible mechanism to produce all the new, genetic information which is essential for that to take place.
The evolution story is an obvious fairy tale presented as scientific fact.
However, nothing has changed – those who dare to question Neo-Darwinism are still portrayed as idiots, retards, cranks, weirdoes, anti-scientific ignoramuses or religious fanatics.
Want to join the club?
What about the fossil record?
The formation of fossils.
Books explaining how fossils are formed frequently give the impression that it takes many years of build up of layers of sediment to bury organic remains, which then become fossilised.
Therefore many people don’t realise that this impression is erroneous, because it is a fact that all good, intact fossils require rapid burial in sufficient sediment to prevent decay or predatory destruction.
So it is evident that rock containing good, undamaged fossils was laid down rapidly, sometimes in catastrophic conditions.
The very existence of intact fossils is a testament to rapid burial and sedimentation.
You don’t get fossils from slow burial. Organic remains don’t just sit around on the sea bed, or elsewhere, waiting for sediment to cover them a millimetre at a time, over a long period.
Unless they are buried rapidly, they would soon be damaged or destroyed by predation and/or decay.
The fact that so many sedimentary rocks contain fossils, indicates that the sediment that created them was normally laid down within a short time.
Another important factor is that many large fossils (tree trunks, large fish, dinosaurs etc.) intersect several or many strata (sometimes called layers) which clearly indicates that multiple strata were formed simultaneously in a single event by grading/segregation of sedimentary particles into distinct layers, and not stratum by stratum over long periods of time or different geological eras, which is the evolutionist’s, uniformitarian interpretation of the geological column.
In view of the fact that many large fossils required a substantial amount of sediment to bury them, and the fact that they intersect multiple strata (polystrate fossils), how can any sensible person claim that strata or, for that matter, any fossil bearing rock, could have taken millions of years to form?
What do laboratory experiments and field studies of recent, sedimentation events show? sedimentology.fr/
You don’t even need to be a qualified sedimentologist or geologist to come to that conclusion, it is common sense.
Rapid formation of strata – some recent, field evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157635944904973/
All creatures and plants alive today, which are found as fossils, are the same in their fossil form as the living examples, in spite of the fact that the fossils are claimed to be millions of years old. So all living things today could be called ‘living fossils’ inasmuch as there is no evidence of any evolutionary changes in the alleged multi-million year timescale. The fossil record shows either extinct species or unchanged species, that is all.
When no evidence is cited as evidence:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/15157133658
The Cambrian Explosion.
Trilobites and other many creatures appeared suddenly in some of the earliest rocks of the fossil record, with no intermediate ancestors. This sudden appearance of a great variety of advanced, fully developed creatures is called the Cambrian Explosion. Trilobites are especially interesting because they have complex eyes, which would need a lot of progressive evolution to develop such advanced features However, there is no evidence of any evolution leading up to the Cambrian Explosion, and that is a serious dilemma for evolutionists.
Trilobites are now thought to be extinct, although it is possible that similar creatures could still exist in unexplored parts of deep oceans.
See fossil of a crab unchanged after many millions of years:
www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/12702046604/in/set-72...
Fossil museum: www.flickr.com/photos/101536517@N06/sets/72157641367196613/
What about all the claimed scientific evidence that evolutionists have found for evolution?
The evolutionist ‘scientific’ method has resulted in a serious decline in scientific integrity, and has given us such scientific abominations as:
Piltdown Man (a fake),
Nebraska Man (a pig),
South West Colorado Man (a horse),
Orce man (a donkey),
Embryonic Recapitulation (a fraud),
Archaeoraptor (a fake),
Java Man (a giant gibbon),
Peking Man (a monkey),
Montana Man (an extinct dog-like creature)
Nutcracker Man (an extinct type of ape – Australopithecus)
The Horse Series (unrelated species cobbled together),
Peppered Moth (faked photographs)
The Orgueil meteorite (faked evidence)
Etc. etc.
Anyone can call anything ‘science’ … it doesn’t make it so.
All these examples were trumpeted by evolutionists as scientific evidence for evolution.
Do we want to trust evolutionists claims about scientific evidence, when they have such an appalling record?
Just how good are peer reviews of scientific papers?
www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
Want to publish a science paper?
www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/full/nature03653…
www.nature.com/news/publishers-withdraw-more-than-120-gib…
Piltdown Man was even used in the famous, Scopes Trial as positive evidence for evolution.
Piltdown Man reigned for over 40 years, as a supreme example of evidence of human evolution, before it was exposed as a crudely, fashioned fake.
Is that ‘science’?
The ludicrous Hopeful Monster Theory and so-called Punctuated Equilibrium (evolution in big jumps followed by long periods of stasis) were invented by evolutionists as a desperate attempt to explain away the lack of fossil evidence for evolution. They are proposed methods of evolution which, it is claimed, need no fossil evidence. They are actually an admission that the required fossil evidence does not exist.
Piltdown Man… it survived as alleged proof of evolution for over 40 years in evolution textbooks and was taught in schools and universities, it survived peer reviews etc. and was used as supposed irrefutable evidence for evolution at the famous Scopes Trial..
Nebraska Man, this was a single tooth of a peccary. it was trumpeted as evidence for the evolution of humans, and artists impressions of an ape-like man appeared in newspapers magazines etc. Such ‘scientific’ evidence is enough to make any genuine, respectable scientist weep.
South West Colorado Man, another tooth …. of a horse this time… presented as more evidence for human evolution.
Orce man, a fragment of skullcap, which was most likely from a donkey, but even if it was human. such a tiny fragment is certainly not any proof of human evolution as it was made out to be.
Embryonic Recapitulation, the evolutionist zealot Ernst Haeckel (who was a hero of Hitler) published fraudulent drawings of embryos and his theory was readily accepted by evolutionists as proof of evolution. Even after he was exposed as a fraudster, evolutionists still continued to use his fraudulent evidence in books and publications on evolution, including school textbooks, until very recently.
Archaeoraptor, A so-called feathered dinosaur from the Chinese fossil faking industry. It managed to fool credulous evolutionists, because it was exactly what they were looking for. The evidence fitted the wishful thinking.
Java Man, Dubois, the man who discovered Java Man and declared it a human ancestor ….. admitted much later that it was actually a giant gibbon, however, that spoilt the evolution story which had been built up around it, so evolutionists were reluctant to get rid of it, and still maintained it was a human ancestor. Dubois had also ‘forgotten’ to mention that he found the bones of modern humans at the same site.
Peking Man, made up from monkey skulls which were found in an ancient limestone burning industrial site where there were crushed monkey skulls and modern human bones. Drawings were made of Peking Man, but the original skull conveniently disappeared. So that allowed evolutionists to continue to use it as evidence without fear of it ever being debunked.
The Horse Series, unrelated species cobbled together, They were from different continents and were in no way a proper series of intermediates, They had different numbers of ribs etc. and the very first in the line, is similar to a creature alive today – the Hyrax.
Peppered Moth, moths were glued to trees to fake photographs for the peppered moth evidence. They don’t normally rest on trees in daytime. In any case, the selection of a trait which is part of the variability of the existing gene pool, is not progressive evolution. It is just normal, natural selection within limits, which no-one disputes.
The Orgueil meteorite, organic material and even plant seeds were embedded and glued into the Orgueil meteorite and disguised with coal dust to make them look like part of the original meteorite, in a fraudulent attempt to fool the world into believing in the discredited idea of spontaneous generation of life, which is essential for progressive evolution to get started. The reasoning being that, if it could be shown that there was life in space, spontaneous generation must have happened there and could therefore be declared by evolutionists as being a scientific fact.
Is macro evolution even science? The answer to that has to be an emphatic – NO!
The usual definition of science is: that which can be demonstrated and observed and repeated. Evolution cannot be proved, or tested; it is claimed to have happened in the past, and, as such, it is not subject to the scientific method. It is merely a belief.
Of course, there is nothing wrong with having beliefs, especially if there is a wealth of evidence to support them, but they should not be presented as scientific fact. As we have shown, in the case of progressive evolution, there is a wealth of evidence against it. Nevertheless, we are told by evolutionist zealots that microbes to man evolution is a fact and likewise the spontaneous generation of life from sterile matter. They are deliberately misleading the public on both counts. Evolution is not only not a fact, it is not even proper science.
You don’t need a degree in rocket science to understand that Darwinism has damaged and undermined science.
However, what does the world’s, most famous, rocket scientist (the father of modern rocket science) have to say?
Wernher von Braun (1912 – 1977) PhD Aerospace Engineering
"In recent years, there has been a disturbing trend toward scientific dogmatism in some areas of science. Pronouncements by notable scientists and scientific organizations about "only one scientifically acceptable explanation" for events which are clearly outside the domain of science — like all origins are — can only destroy the curiosity of those who must carry on the future work of science. Humility, a seemingly natural product of studying nature, appears to have largely disappeared — at least its visibility is clouded from the public’s viewpoint.
Extrapolation backward in time until there are no physical artifacts of certainty that can be examined, requires sophisticated guessing which scientists prefer to refer to as "inference." Since hypotheses, a product of scientific inference, are virtually the stuff that comprises the cutting edge of scientific progress, inference must constantly be nurtured. However, the enthusiasm that encourages inference must be matched in degree with caution that clearly differentiates inference from what the public so readily accepts as "scientific fact." Failure to keep these two factors in balance can lead either to a sterile or a seduced science. ‘Science but not Scientists’ (2006) p.xi"
And the eminent scientist, William Robin Thompson (1887 – 1972) Entomologist and Director of the Commonwealth Institute of Biological Control, Ottawa, Canada, who was asked to write the introduction of the centenary edition of Darwin’s ‘Origin’, wrote:
"The concept of organic Evolution is very highly prized by biologists, for many of whom it is an object of genuinely religious devotion, because they regard it as a supreme integrative principle. This is probably the reason why the severe methodological criticism employed in other departments of biology has not yet been brought to bear against evolutionary speculation." ‘Science and Common Sense’ (1937) p.229
“As we know, there is a great divergence of opinion among biologists … because the evidence is unsatisfactory and does not permit any certain conclusion. It is therefore right and proper to draw the attention of the non-scientific public to the disagreements about evolution. But some recent remarks of evolutionists show that they think this unreasonable ……
This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigor, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and unwise in science.”
Prof. W. R. Thompson, F.R.S., introduction to the 1956 edition of Darwin’s ‘Origin of the Species’
"When I was asked to write an introduction replacing the one prepared a quarter of a century ago by the distinguished Darwinian, Sir Anthony Keith [one of the "discoverers" of Piltdown Man], I felt extremely hesitant to accept the invitation . . I am not satisfied that Darwin proved his point or that his influence in scientific and public thinking has been beneficial. If arguments fail to resist analysis, consent should be withheld and a wholesale conversion due to unsound argument must be regarded as deplorable. He fell back on speculative arguments."
"He merely showed, on the basis of certain facts and assumptions, how this might have happened, and as he had convinced himself he was able to convince others."
"But the facts and interpretations on which Darwin relied have now ceased to convince."
"This general tendency to eliminate, by means of unverifiable speculations, the limits of the categories Nature presents to us is the inheritance of biology from The Origin of Species. To establish the continuity required by the theory, historical arguments are invoked, even though historical evidence is lacking. Thus are engendered those fragile towers of hypothesis based on hypothesis, where fact and fiction intermingle in an inextricable confusion."—*W.R. Thompson, "Introduction," to Everyman’s Library issue of Charles Darwin, Origin of Species (1958 edition).
"The evolution theory can by no means be regarded as an innocuous natural philosophy, but rather is a serious obstruction to biological research. It obstructs—as has been repeatedly shown—the attainment of consistent results, even from uniform experimental material. For everything must ultimately be forced to fit this theory. An exact biology cannot, therefore, be built up."—*H. Neilsson, Synthetische Artbildng, 1954, p. 11
www.trueorigin.org/
Berkeley University law professor, Philip Johnson, makes the following points: “(1) Evolution is grounded not on scientific fact, but on a philosophical belief called naturalism; (2) the belief that a large body of empirical evidence supports evolution is an illusion; (3) evolution is itself a religion; and, (4) if evolution were a scientific hypothesis based on rigorous study of the evidence, it would have been abandoned long ago.”
DNA.
The discovery of DNA should have been the death knell for evolution. It is only because evolutionists tend to manipulate and interpret evidence to suit their own preconceptions that makes them believe DNA is evidence FOR evolution.
It is clear that there is no natural mechanism which can produce constructional, biological information, such as that encoded in DNA.
Information Theory (and common sense) tells us that the unguided interaction of matter and energy cannot produce constructive information.
Do evolutionists even know where the very first, genetic information in the alleged Primordial Soup came from?
Of course they don’t, but with the usual bravado, they bluff it out, and regardless, they rashly present the spontaneous generation of life as a scientific fact.
However, a fact, it certainly isn’t …. and good science it certainly isn’t.
Even though evolutionists have no idea whatsoever about how the first, genetic information originated, they still claim that the spontaneous generation of life (abiogenesis) is an established scientific fact, but this is completely disingenuous. Apart from the fact that abiogenesis violates the Law of Biogenesis, the Law of Cause and Effect and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, it also violates Information Theory.
Evolutionists have an enormous problem with explaining how the DNA code itself originated. However that is not even the major problem. The impression is given to the public by evolutionists that they only have to find an explanation for the origin of DNA by natural processes – and the problem of the origin of genetic information will have been solved.
That is a confusion in the minds of many people that evolutionists cynically exploit,
Explaining how DNA was formed by chemical processes, explains only how the information storage medium was formed, it tells us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
To clarify this it helps to compare DNA to other information, storage mediums.
For example, if we compare DNA to the written word, we understand that the alphabet is a tangible medium for storing, recording and expressing information, it is not information in itself. The information is recorded in the sequence of letters, forming meaningful words.
You could say that the alphabet is the ‘hardware’ created from paper and ink, and the sequential arrangement of the letters is the software. The software is a mental construct, not a physical one.
The same applies to DNA. DNA is not information of itself, just like the alphabet it is the medium for storing and expressing information. It is an amazingly efficient storage medium. However, it is the sequence or arrangement of the amino acids which is the actual information, not the DNA code.
So, if evolutionists are ever able to explain how DNA was formed by chemical processes, it would explain only how the information storage medium was formed. It will tell us nothing about the origin of the information it carries.
Thus, when atheists and evolutionists tell us it is only a matter of time before ‘science’ will be able to fill the ‘gaps’ in our knowledge and explain the origin of genetic information, they are not being honest. Explaining the origin of the ‘hardware’ by natural processes is an entirely different matter to explaining the origin of the software.
Next time you hear evolutionists skating over the problem of the origin of genetic information with their usual bluff and bluster, and parroting their usual nonsense about science being able to fill such gaps in knowledge in the future, don’t be fooled. They cannot explain the origin of genetic information, and never will be able to. The software cannot be created by chemical processes or the interaction of energy and matter, it is not possible. If you don’t believe that. then by all means put it to the test, by challenging any evolutionist to explain how genetic information (not DNA) can originate by natural means? I can guarantee they won’t be able to do so.
It is true to say – the evolution cupboard is bare when it come to real, tangible evidence.
For example:
1.The origin of life is still a mystery, evolutionists have failed to demonstrate that the Law of Biogenesis (which rules out the spontaneous generation of life) is not universally valid.
2.They have no explanation for where the first, genetic information came from.
3.They assume (without any evidence) that matter is somehow intrinsically predisposed to produce life whenever the environmental conditions for life permit.
4.They deny that there is any purpose in the universe, yet completely contradict that premise by assuming the above intrinsic predisposition of matter to produce life, as though matter is somhow endowed with a ‘blueprint’ for the creation of life.
5.They have no credible mechanism for the increase of genetic information required for progressive evolution and increasing complexity.
6.They have failed to produce any credible, intermediate, fossil examples, in spite of searching for over 150 years. There should be millions of examples, yet there is not a single one which is a watertight example.
7.They regularly publish so-called evidence which, when properly examined, is discovered to be nothing of the sort: Example … Orce Man (the skullcap of a donkey!).
8.They use dubious dating techniques, such as circular reasoning in the dating of fossils and rocks.
9. They discard any evidence – radiocarbon dating, sedimentation experiments, fossils etc. that doesn’t fit the preconceptions.
10. They frequently make the claim that there has to be life on other planets, simply on the assumption (without evidence) that life spontaneously generated and evolved on Earth which they take it for granted is a proven fact.
11.They cannot produce a single, credible example of a genuinely, beneficial mutation, yet billions would be required for microbes to human evolution.
There is much more, but that should suffice to debunk the incessant hype and propaganda that microbes-to-human evolution is an established, irrefutable fact.
It should be enough to put an end to the greatest fraud that has been foisted on the public in scientific history.
We are constantly told by evolutionists that the majority of scientists accept progressive evolution (as though that gives it credence) … but most scientists, don’t actually study evolution in any depth, because it is outside their field of expertise. They simply trust what they are taught in school, and mistakenly trust the integrity of evolutionists to present evidence objectively.
That is another great MISTAKE!
Evolutionism: The Religion That Offers Nothing.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znXF0S6D_Ts&list=TLqiH-mJoVPB...
FOUNDATIONS OF SCIENCE
The Law of Cause and Effect. Dominant Principle of Classical Physics. David L. Bergman and Glen C. Collins
www.thewarfareismental.net/b/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/b...
"The Big Bang’s Failed Predictions and Failures to Predict: (Updated Aug 3, 2017.) As documented below, trust in the big bang’s predictive ability has been misplaced when compared to the actual astronomical observations that were made, in large part, in hopes of affirming the theory."
kgov.com/big-bang-predictions
Posted by Truth in science on 2018-04-20 13:29:34
Tagged: , Darwin lecture series , Darwin college , ac Grayling , National Secular society , evidence over ignorance , science versus atheism , science matters , Christian Union , dan barker , Steven pinker , RDFRS , Darwin day lecture , standupforscience , solidarity in science , Darwinism has failed , truth in science , science march , science not silence , humanists uk , Voltaire lecture , palaeontology , biostratigraphy , geologic column , natural history museum , sir David Attenborough , social Darwinism , socialism , Marxism , Liberal Democrat’s , nick clegg , enlightenment now , secular humanist , secularism , atheism , atheist , Jeremy Corbyn , al gore , the science guy , bill nye , bill Maher , Peter Tatchell , March for science , university college London , London school of Economics , Andrew copson , Labour Party , Eddie izzard , Stephen hawking , Richard Dawkins , Ricky gervais , dr Evan Harris , sitp , FFRF , British humanist association , American atheists , camp quest , Darwinist , Darwinism , Charles Darwin , evolutionist , evolution , mutations
The post The Great Mistake appeared first on Good Info.
0 notes
My Career Path
My Career Path
When I graduated from high school in 2003 I was a very confused young man. I did not know much about life but I knew few things about Jesus Christ. I did not have street smarts—I matured very late!–but I knew few Biblical principles. One of the things I knew was that God has a plan for my life and being a new high school graduate I wanted to know His will for my career. So I decided after high school I would work wherever until I discern my God-given talents, and once I know His will for my career then I would pursue getting an education that prepares me for that career path. My high school teachers did not understand why would a student whose overall average never dropped below 90% would want to be a general labourer.
Anyway, after graduating I went to few temporary work agencies to find work. I had to buy steel toed safety shoes because most general labour jobs require them. Pretty soon I found myself working in the warehouse of a clothing company. My boss was a Chinese man who had spent 30 years working there, and my supervisor was an older Chinese man who been working there for many years too. They soon liked me and hired me after 6 months, while temporary workers who have been working there for years were still working for the agency. Two months after being hired the company had their annual wages raise and I did not qualify for it because I had to be working as a full-timer for a full year to qualify for it. But my boss called me into his office and told me that he liked the work I did and wanted to help me and so he gave me a 6% raise which I really appreciated. When I left the office the senior full time workers asked me how much I had gotten for a raise so I told them 6% and suddenly they disliked me! I did not know why their attitude changed toward me until the next day when I found out that the reason was becausethat all full-time workers had gotten only a 3% raise. Like I said, I was very naive and I did not know better as not to disclose this information. Anyway, in the next 3 years my boss had given me about 45% raise, while they had gotten anywhere between 1-3% annual raise.
The reason my boss liked me is that I did every and anything without complaining—I simply did whatever they asked me no matter how menial it was. The Bible says in Colossians 3:23, “Whatever you do, work at it with all your heart, as working for the Lord, not for men.” And my mottos were, “I get paid by hour so I work by hour”, and, “There is a reason why it is called ‘general labour’”—so I never complained about the type of work I had to do or the pay because when I accepted a general labour position I understood two things: I will get paid little, and I will have to do a physical and dirty work.
Anyway, my boss realized I loved to fix mechanical things: paper shredder, lift truck, a table, a cart. So over 3 years he kept asking me to fix broken things around the warehouse, and I realized how much I loved working with gears and mechanical things in general. These experiences brought back memories of how in my teenage years in Iraq I spent all my summer breaks building remote controlled cars, airplanes, and making toy guns and foosball tables, and so on! So I knew I wanted to become a mechanical engineer and therefore 4 years after working in the warehouse I started studying mechanical engineer at UofT.
What I really want to draw attention to is God’s goodness. See, I did not choose the warehouse I worked at but our heavenly Father put me in the right place working for the right boss. People told me that I was working in the wrong place because of their limited wisdom, but God in His infinite wisdom knew what He was doing. God knew what I needed, and so He put me where I needed to be. Being a stubborn person I knew better than listening to people—no matter how well intended their intentions were—because I knew few things:
1) God is real—He exists! (Hebrews 11:6)
2) He is the God of the Bible and I know Him because He revealed Himself in the person of Jesus Christ. Whenever I wondered, “Who is this God I am waiting for?” I realized I knew who He is because I knew who Jesus Christ is. (John 14:9)
3) He is a good, loving, faithful, wise and powerful God, and He is my heavenly Father.
4) He has His own timing and ways of doing things.
So working at the warehouse was His way of helping me find my God-given talent. When I applied to UofT I was told that it was a good thing I had applied then because any high school diplomas older than 4 years old would not be accepted; I did not know that but God did and that was His timing.
***
I worked at the warehouse for 2 summer breaks while I was a student at university. In the third summer, in 2010, the clothing company was going through bankruptcy and so they did not have work for me. I needed work because I needed money for the next school year so I applied to some summer engineering internship. I got an interview so I went to it. The interview lasted 2.5 hours and it was by far the worst interview I had ever heard of! It was so bad that it did not matter what I answered to the questions of the engineer who was interviewing me, the answers were wrong! I mean, he even criticized the font size I used in my resume—which was 11 points instead of 12! I wanted to be out of there so bad, and I hoped he would not hire me because I was too embarrassed to see him again! At the end of the interview he told me that his career was delayed 4 years also because when he graduated, some 30 years earlier, Canada was going through a recession and he could not find a job for 4 years.
After the interview my sister asked, “How did the interview go?” And I told her, “Don’t even ask. If he hired me it would truly be a miracle!” And she said, “That’s right. We have a God who works on our behave.” Two weeks later he called me offering the job alongside one of my classmates. He initially just wanted to hire one student—which was my classmate–but decided to hire me anyway. My boss (the interviewer) turned out to be a very cool and nice man who I learned a lot from. I think I did a good job there and I was offered a full-year internship but I really wanted to go back to school and finish it as soon as possible. Of course this 4 months long engineering experience helped me a lot to include an actual engineering experience on my resume.
For some reason I never felt qualified to do that job, even though I believe I did a good job. I think it is because the engineer who hired me did so more because he felt sorry for me than needed my services. (I think he also hired me because he was able to associate with the experience of having your career delayed 4 years.) I want you to keep this in mind because I will touch back on this point later.
After graduating in 2011 I was desperate for a job, any job, and after few months I found myself working at a government company. I worked there for 6 months and I did not like the job even though the people were nice and the pay was good. My task in the last 2 weeks was so boring that on the last day I was afraid my boss would extend my contract! I so wanted to be out of there even though I knew that would mean I would be unemployed and without money!
After a couple of weeks and getting bored of staying at home I prayed a short and simple prayer asking for two things:
1) I told God that the point of studying mechanical engineering was not to become any engineer or to make money, but to put the talents He had given me into practice. That means I want a design position, and engineering is such a broad field that you can do so many things that are not related to your God-given talents.
2) I told God that I wanted to work at a company that wants to hire. A company that believes I am valuable to it. A company where I feel appreciated.
Few weeks ago I saw this job advertisement on the internet seeking a mechanical designer at an office furniture company. The job required the candidate to have 2-3 years experience and knowledge of sheet metal and a design software called AutoCAD. I did not have any of the requirements so I did not apply to that position, and I can still remember thinking, “This sounds like the job I want, but too bad I don’t qualify otherwise I would’ve applied to it!” Next day a staffing agency called me and told me to come see them about that same position. I was very surprised and so I went to the agency. I was so surprised by the whole ordeal that at the end of the interview with the agency personnel I asked him, “How did you get my resume?” He looked surprise and said, “What do you mean? You sent it to me!” I am sure I sent him my resume and I don’t remember it because I applied to quite few jobs, but the strange thing is that I only remember not sending the resume!
I told the agency that I have no experience in design and I have no knowledge with sheet metal or AutoCAD, but they told me it is ok because the company wants to interview me. So I went to the interview and half way through the interview the senior engineer and hiring manager asked me, “When can you start?” And I was taken aback by his question because they usually ask that question after the interview is over and they usually ask it very casually like, “If you are the successful candidate, what date are you available to start?” So I asked, “Me?” And he laughed and said, “Yes!” And his expression was like, “Who else?!” And I felt like the senior engineer really wanted to hire me, not because he felt sorry for me, but because he believed I can be a valuable member of his team.
The week after I was interview by a human resources lady and half way through the interview she said, “That’s impressive.” And again I felt like I was being valued at this company. That is when I remembered the request in my prayer.
***
Christians we often say, “Trust and obey.” In my life I noticed that is not the complete picture because it is more like, “Trust, obey and trust.” See our obedience is not the end of the story because our obedience is not what gets things done. Our obedience is only an expression of our faith; you say you trust God? Ok then act on this trust by obeying Him. But it is God who gets things done—God’s work is the end of the story. That is why after obedience we still need to trust again to see Him complete His work. For example Gideon trusted God will bring victory though him so he obeyed by downsizing his army to mere 300 men, and then he trusted again as he saw God defeating the enemy—trust, obey, and trust again.
There are few things I want to draw your attention to:
1) We must pray according to God’s will. Supposed that I had prayed for God to make me a successful singer, do you think He will honour my request? The answer is no, because singing is not my talent. When you pray according to God’s will then you do not have to beg and you can pray with confidence. You cannot disobey God and expect Him to fix your deliberate mistakes by simply praying about it.
See, I like classical music but that does not mean I have to become a musician—I can simply enjoy the music of others. I like tennis but that does not mean I have to become a tennis player—I can simply enjoy the game of others. I like cars but that does not mean I have to build my own car—I can simply enjoy the cars made by others. It is wonderful and freeing to know and accept God’s will for our lives. If we do then we can accept ourselves and others, appreciate our talents and the talents of others, and be confident of the path we are to take.
2) Focus on God’s goodness. When I was a new Christian I thought that I was saved by grace but I am to live by works, but we are both saved and are to live the Christian life by God’s grace. If I told you how imperfect and sinless I am then you would say, “Fadi, there is no way God was involved in answering your prayers or your career path!” But this is not about me but about God’s goodness. I have come to the point if life when I do not worry much because I trust in the goodness of God. I am not saying this to encourage you to sin but to free you from worry and the false teaching of living by works.
See, our God is a good God. We are His children not because of our works but because of the Cross of Jesus Christ. For example, suppose that you are Christian and you are an alcoholic and you are struggling with quitting drinking and suppose that your marriage is in trouble and your family needs a healing. Do you think God is going to say, “Gee! Look at this Christian! He can’t stop getting drunk and now He needs my help to heal his marriage! There is no way I am doing that for him! Let him fix himself first then come asking for My help! I am so going to destroy his marriage in the meantime!” No, of course not! At least that is not how the God of the Bible operate and He is the only real God.
Suppose if I am holding the hand of my nephew and we are walking on the side walk but he really wants to run into the busy street to play, do you think I will let him do so just because he wants to? Of course not! I won’t act based on his attitude or actions, but based on my goodness and the fact that I am his uncle and he is my nephew and that I love him! For you this may not be big news but to me it is because I grew up in a Middle Eastern culture where there is no Biblical understanding of who God is. That is why I want to stress the goodness and love of God to you.
3) We are not ruled by the ways this world rule. We are God’s children born by the power of the Holy Spirit, and therefore we do not belong to this world. The principles of this world do not apply to us because we are governed by spiritual principles such as God’s goodness, obedience, and glorifying our heavenly Father. The way God works in our lives is not the same way the world strive to achieve their dreams. Recently I offered to help a Christian facebook friend with her resume because she did not have one and she was about to give up applying to better jobs because she had no resume. The first thing she told me is that people have told her that she needs a really good resume to get a job as a hospital pharmacist. And that made me reflect on my career path and I answered her saying that if God wants her to work somewhere He can do it even if she had no resume at all! That is what He did to me: I got a job I am so unqualified for! He made me find favour in the eyes of the engineers who interviewed me; they knew I was not qualified for the original job posting so maybe they created a junior job position for me.
4) Do not worry. My mom says it is not good that I am worry free (I do worry, of course, but much less than the average person) because she wants me to hurry and get married, and have kids, and buy a house, etc. But why should I worry? If, motivated by love, God sent His only and beloved Son to die for my sins before I was even born, then what can separate me from the love of my heavenly Father? See, my attitude toward life does not come from self-confident (if you had read my older writings you will realize I grew up with no self-confidence), nor my careless attitude toward life as some people think I am, but from my trust “that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his.” (Romans 8:28) It is good to read the Bible and understand it, but a time must come when we start living it.
I talked about God’s goodness toward me and my career path, but His goodness extends to all areas of our lives: spiritually, physically, emotionally, mentally, financially, relationships, and so on. He wants to take care of you whether it is in regard to your career, marriage, big decisions such as buying expensive things like a house or a car, or planning a career move or even finding the right mechanic for your car!
Few years ago I asked, “How can I get to know God as my heavenly Father since I do not have an idea what a good father is?” I asked that question because I rarely saw my earthly father while growing up because he had to spend most of his time in the army. I learned about what is it like to have a good father from God Himself; God did not need someone to go ahead of Him to show the way—He showed the way! He set the pattern of love, goodness, generosity, and serving and He set the pattern of how to be a good Father.
(Toronto, ON; summer 2012.)
Posted by 001FJ on 2012-05-15 16:50:56
Tagged:
The post My Career Path appeared first on Good Info.
0 notes
Why a Vitamin D Test Is More Important Than a Mammogram
Why a Vitamin D Test Is More Important Than a Mammogram Why a Vitamin D Test Is More Important Than a Mammogram You can skip this video in seconds Skip Ad Visit the Mercola Video Library Story at-a-glance – October is national Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the U.S. National Mammography Day is October 19. Vitamin D optimization could potentially eliminate a vast majority of breast cancers, yet this key information is completely ignored by conventional breast cancer awareness campaigns Most cancers occur in people with a vitamin D blood level between 10 and 40 ng/mL, and the optimal level for cancer protection has been identified as being between 60 and 80 ng/mL Research shows having a vitamin D blood level above 60 ng/mL lowers your risk of breast cancer by more than 80 percent, compared to having a level below 20 ng/mL Recent research shows postmenopausal women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer are more likely to have low vitamin D and be overweight than women who receive a negative diagnosis This year, do your breast health a real favor and get your vitamin D level checked. One of the easiest and most cost-effective ways of doing this is to enroll in the D*Action Breast Cancer Prevention project, which now includes both vitamin D and omega-3 testing October is national Breast Cancer Awareness Month in the U.S., and with it comes the annual clarion call of pink-ribboned 1 breast cancer awareness campaigns. 2 National Mammography Day 3 falls on the third Friday of October, which this year is the 19th. Chances are, you��ve been barraged with reminders that mammograms save lives. Unfortunately, little effort is made to educate women about actual prevention. Detecting cancer has nothing to do with prevention. At that point, it’s already too late. Mammograms also have serious health risks , none of which are addressed by the conventional breast cancer awareness campaigns. Importantly, vitamin D optimization could potentially eliminate a vast majority of breast cancers, yet this key information is being completely ignored. Vitamin D Optimization Could Eliminate a Majority of Breast Cancer Cases Generally speaking, research has shown that once you reach a minimum serum vitamin D level of 40 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL), your risk for cancer diminishes by 67 percent, compared to having a level of 20 ng/ml or less. 4 Research shows most cancers occur in people with a vitamin D blood level between 10 and 40 ng/mL, and the optimal level for cancer protection has been identified as being between 60 and 80 ng/mL. Vitamin D also increases your chances of surviving cancer if you do get it, 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 and evidence suggests adding vitamin D to the conventional treatment for cancer can boost the effectiveness of the treatment. 9 Several studies also show that higher vitamin D levels are protective against breast cancer specifically. Importantly, a 2005 study 10 showed women with vitamin D levels above 60 ng/mL have an 83 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those below 20 ng/mL, and I cannot think of any other strategy that can offer that kind of risk reduction. Mammograms certainly cannot. More recently, a pooled analysis 11 published in June 2018 of two randomized trials and a prospective cohort study came to a near-identical conclusion. The objective was to assess whether there are any benefits to having a vitamin D level above 40 ng/mL, as most studies do not venture into these higher levels. Indeed, mirroring the 2005 findings, women with vitamin D levels at or above 60 ng/mL had an 82 percent lower incidence rate of breast cancer than those with levels of 20 ng/mL or less. Pooled data were analyzed in three different ways. First, incidence rates were compared based on vitamin D levels ranging from 20 to 60 ng/mL. Next, statistical analysis using Kaplan-Meier plots were done. Third, multivariate Cox regression was used to examine the association between various vitamin D levels and breast cancer risk. According to the authors: “Results were similar for the three analyses. First, comparing incidence rates, there was an 82 percent lower incidence rate of breast cancer for women with 25(OH)D concentrations ≥60 vs <20 ng/mL. Second, Kaplan-Meier curves for concentrations of <20, 20–39, 40–59 and ≥60 ng/mL were significantly different, with the highest proportion breast cancer-free in the ≥60 ng/ml group (99.3 percent) and the lowest proportion breast cancer-free in the <20 ng/ml group (96.8 percent). The proportion with breast cancer was 78 percent lower for ≥60 vs >>> Click Here <<<<< Other Studies Linking Vitamin D Status With Cancer Risk Several other studies also support the hypothesis that higher vitamin D levels are powerful cancer prevention, including but not limited to the following: 12 Menopause, 2018 — Just last month, research 13 , 14 published in the journal Menopause found that postmenopausal women who receive a diagnosis of breast cancer are more likely to be vitamin D deficient and overweight than women who receive a negative diagnosis. Overall, breast cancer patients were 1.5 times more likely to have low vitamin D. The BMJ, 2018 15 — Earlier this year, a Japanese study published in The BMJ concluded that higher vitamin D levels were associated with a 20 percent lower relative risk of internal cancers in both sexes. Equally important, they found there was no increased risk for any type of cancer associated with higher vitamin D levels. PLOS One, 2016 16 , 17 — This pooled analysis of a randomized trial and a prospective cohort study found that women aged 55 and older who had a vitamin D serum level of 40 ng/ml or greater had a 67 percent reduced risk of cancer compared to those with a vitamin D level of 20 ng/ml or less. Cancer Causes & Control, 2013 18 — In this case control study, those who had a vitamin D level of 35 ng/mL or higher were 70 percent less likely to develop breast cancer compared to those with a level of 15 ng/mL or less. PLOS One, 2011 19 — Here, women with a vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL or higher had a 60 percent lower risk of breast cancer than those with a level of 20 ng/mL or below. Among post-menopausal women, the risk was 71 percent lower. Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention, 2009 20 — In this case control study, premenopausal women with a vitamin D level of 34 ng/mL or higher had a greater than 60 percent reduction in breast cancer risk compared to those with a level of 24 ng/mL or lower. Carcinogenesis, 2007 21 — Postmenopausal women with a vitamin D level of 30 ng/mL had a nearly 70 percent reduced risk of breast cancer compared to those with levels of 12 ng/mL or less. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 2007 — Women over 55 who raised their average serum level to 38 ng/mL lowered their risk of all invasive cancers, including breast cancer, by 77 percent. 22 Anticancer Research February 2011 — In this study, breast cancer patients with high vitamin D levels were twice as likely to survive than those with low levels. 23 , 24 , 25 (Higher vitamin D levels are also associated with a lower risk of severe peripheral neuropathy in cancer patients. 26 ) This Breast Cancer Awareness Month, Get Your Vitamin D Level Checked This year, do your breast health a real favor and get your vitamin D level checked. One of the easiest and most cost-effective ways of doing this is to enroll in the D*Action Breast Cancer Prevention project , which now includes both vitamin D and omega-3 testing. Their new myData-myAnswers personalized health software is now able to “give you feedback on your health conditions compared to thousands of others so you can make more informed decisions on your actions.” GrassrootsHealth also has a handy vitamin D calculator that can help you determine how much vitamin D you need per day to get to 60 ng/mL or above. You can enroll in this cancer prevention project either on the GrassrootsHealth website, or by ordering the vitamin D testing kit , either alone or in combination with the omega-3 test, from my online store. All revenues from these kits go directly to GrassrootsHealth. I make no profit from these kits and only provide them as a service of convenience to my readers. As noted on GrassrootsHealth’s D*Action Challenge 27 webpage, before you donate money to a breast cancer prevention group, find out whether the group has any focus on primary prevention, opposed to just mammograms. Are they actually trying to eliminate breast cancer, or are they just pushing for detection? Secondly, check to see whether the group recommends vitamin D testing as a key prevention strategy. Again, research has clearly demonstrated that having a vitamin D level of at least 40 ng/mL, and ideally between 60 and 80 ng/mL, 28 can massively reduce your risk of breast cancer. As noted by GrassrootsHealth, “If the answers are ‘YES’ to both challenges, then the women stand to gain quickly, significantly, safely and inexpensively.” If not, your money is probably not going to do much good, seeing how there’s been no change in breast cancer incidence in over a decade, despite the many millions collected in donations. According to data published in the Archives of Internal Medicine, 29 75 percent of American adults and teens are deficient in vitamin D, based on a sufficiency level of 30 ng/mL. This means at least three-quarters of the female population in the U.S. could lower their risk of breast cancer by 60 to 80 percent. If the sufficiency cutoff were to be moved to 40 or 60 ng/mL, deficiency rates in the U.S. would likely be in the high 90 percent bracket. The take-home message is that the vast majority of people do not have vitamin D serum levels that are high enough to prevent cancer, and this is so easy and inexpensive to fix! So, please, if you haven’t done so already, make vitamin D optimization your goal during this year’s breast cancer awareness month, and share the news with all the other women in your life. Be Mindful of the Interplay of Vitamins D and K2, Calcium and Magnesium As for how to raise your vitamin D level, remember that the best way is through sensible sun exposure . That said, many will need oral supplementation to achieve an optimal level, especially if you’re pregnant in the wintertime. Just remember that if you take high-dose oral vitamin D, you may also need to increase your intake of calcium, magnesium and vitamin K2 as well, as these four nutrients work in tandem and rely on sufficient amounts of each to work properly. Importantly, inadequate levels of vitamin K2 in combination with high vitamin D intake may cause overabsorption of calcium, which in turn can result in calcium deposits in your heart and kidneys. Maintaining an appropriate calcium-to-magnesium ratio 30 is also important, as magnesium helps keep calcium in your cells so they can function better. A ratio of 1-to-1 appears to be ideal. Magnesium is also required for the activation of vitamin D. Without sufficient magnesium, taking a vitamin D supplement may be ineffective, 31 , 32 essentially making it appear you need unnecessarily high amounts. If your magnesium level is too low, the vitamin D will simply get stored in its inactive form, doing you absolutely no good. According to recent research, 33 as many as 50 percent of Americans taking vitamin D supplements may not get significant benefit due to insufficient magnesium levels. On the other hand, when you have an optimal magnesium level, your vitamin D level will rise even if you’re taking a much lower dose. 34 To learn more about this, see “ Without Magnesium, Vitamin D Supplementation May Backfire .” Pink-Washing — Beware the Pink Ribbon Scam While there are many different breast cancer prevention charities, the Susan G. Komen Foundation 35 is perhaps the most well-known. It has done a great deal of harm to women by obfuscating the authentic preventative measures available to combat breast cancer and downplaying the preventive role of a healthy diet , vitamin D optimization and limiting chemical exposures, while heavily promoting mammography . By ignoring the role your lifestyle plays in the development of cancer, organizations such as these can continue to collect billions of dollars of donations in the name of “finding a cure.” Meanwhile, effective prevention could eliminate the need for finding a cure altogether. As noted in a 2014 article by Karuna Jaggar, executive director of Breast Cancer Action: 36 “Few people realize that Breast Cancer Awareness Month (BCAM) was launched by Astra Zeneca, a pharmaceutical company that sells cancer treatments on the one hand and carcinogenic pesticides on the other. So BCAM has all along been one big marketing campaign — arguably the most successful marketing campaign of the 20th century. This is why at Breast Cancer Action, we call October ‘Breast Cancer Industry Month,’ the month when corporations make money professing how much they care about breast cancer by selling pink ribbon products … How many of the ingredients contained in a random selection of pink products are toxic and bad for our health? No one knows because of weak chemical regulation in the United States that’s outdated … We can’t waste another October watching corporations make money off pink ribbon products that contain toxins linked to breast cancer. If you are outraged, take a stand to protect all of us from toxic chemicals that are making us sick because the manufacturers of pink ribbon products certainly won’t.” Mammograms Do More Harm Than Good and Have No Impact on Mortality Rates Mammography can detect invasive breast cancer in women. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is whether or not routine mammograms are really the right tool to reduce breast cancer rates, and whether it might harm more women than it helps in the process. A growing body of evidence suggests that it does in fact, on the whole, do more harm than good by generating high rates of false positives that lead to unnecessary treatment and associated emotional trauma. 37 Those who opt for aggressive treatment such as a mastectomy, radiation and/or chemotherapy after a false positive diagnosis undergo physical pain and suffering “for nothing.” However, since you’re unlikely to ever find out that you didn’t have life-threatening cancer after all, women who believe their lives were saved by mammography will be hard-pressed to buy into the idea that routine mammograms are more harmful than helpful. Still, statistics suggest many breast cancer survivors are not actually survivors of breast cancer, they’re survivors of breast cancer treatment. 38 Several studies have completely demolished the notion that mammograms save lives. For example: • A 2015 study published in JAMA Internal Medicine 39 found mammography screenings lead to unnecessary treatments while having virtually no impact on the number of deaths from breast cancer. • Another 2015 study 40 published in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine declares its conclusion right in the title, which reads: “Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned.” In short, decades of routine breast cancer screening using mammograms has done nothing to decrease deaths from breast cancer, while causing more than half — 52 percent — of all women undergoing the test to be overdiagnosed and overtreated. According to lead author Peter C. Gøtzsche, had mammograms been a drug, “it would have been withdrawn from the market long ago.” • A 2012 study 41 in The Lancet concluded that for every life saved by mammography screening, three women are overdiagnosed and treated with surgery, radiation, or chemotherapy for a cancer that might never have given them trouble in their lifetimes. Additionally, no positive correlation with mortality could be found. Computer Analysis Does Not Improve Accuracy of Mammograms Research 42 also shows the use of computer-aided detection (CAD) for mammography, which is used in 90 percent of U.S. mammograms at a cost of $400 million a year, does nothing to improve the accuracy of the test. The study looked at more than 625,000 mammograms from nearly 324,000 women to determine whether CAD actually improves a radiologist’s interpretation of a mammogram or not. As it turns out, CAD had no beneficial impact on mammography interpretation, leading the authors to conclude that: “These results suggest that insurers pay more for CAD with no established benefit to women.” In fact, radiologists were actually more prone to miss cancer when using CAD compared to when not using it. Overall, radiologists correctly identified cancer 90 percent of the time when CAD was not used, and only 83 percent of the time when they used CAD. Take Control of Your Cancer Risk In closing, remember to get your vitamin D level checked, and if below 60 ng/mL, take steps to raise your blood level. If you’re looking for a scientifically proven way to avoid being a breast cancer statistic, optimizing your vitamin D is at the very top of the list. Again, the level you’re aiming for is between 60 and 80 ng/mL, with 40 ng/mL being the low cutoff point for sufficiency to prevent a wide range of diseases, including cancer. As for dosage, you need to take whatever dosage required to get you into the optimal range. Research 43 suggests it would require 9,600 IUs of vitamin D per day to get 97 percent of the population to reach 40 ng/mL, but individual requirements can vary widely. As mentioned, your magnesium status is a very important factor that can play a role in your required dosage, but there are many other individual factors as well. If you’ve been taking a certain amount of vitamin D3 for a number of months and retesting reveals you’re still not within the recommended range, then you know you need to increase your dosage. Over time, with continued testing, you’ll find your individual sweet spot and have a good idea of how much you need to take to maintain a healthy level year-round. 0 Read More… The post Why a Vitamin D Test Is More Important Than a Mammogram appeared first on Denny Boy’s Interesting Blog. from Denny Boy’s Interesting Blog ift.tt/2Clv73U via Article Source ifttt.com/images/no_image_card.png Denny Boy’s Interesting Blog October 16, 2018 at 04:43PM
Posted by reyer19915528 on 2018-10-17 02:54:42
Tagged: , Madison , Gapvin
The post Why a Vitamin D Test Is More Important Than a Mammogram appeared first on Good Info.
0 notes