The Theory of Evolution is almost entirely propped up by unobserved extrapolations and speculative fairy tales.

Here is a great example of an ill-informed atheist trying to "debunk" observed scientific evidence with unobserved evolutionist dogma.

Let's go through each of his points and show why every objection he makes fails completely.

https://x.com/DivinelyDesined/status/1996881217271345255

1. He argues that "Hox genes are evolution's smoking gun" and that they "only make sense through common ancestry" because the same Hox clusters control development in many different organisms.

But this is just an assumption based on bias. It's completely consistent with design engineering that a good design would be reused in different areas.

Almost all vehicles on the road have 4 tires, steering wheels, engines, gas tanks, etc. That's because these are all good design features.

Evolutionists do this all the time - they assume that "similar = related" and they completely ignore the possibility that similarities can come from a common designer.

The major difference is that evolution cannot engineer Hox genes and DGRNs - they are clearly an example of an intentionally designed complex system.

2. He merely asserts that "DGRNs evolved" and claims "we can trace their modifications across lineages."

This is just flat out false. He's conflating the observed differences with unobserved evolutionary modification - a vast assumption.

I already showed in my original thread that DGRNs cannot be modified - he's directly contradicting the observed scientific data in favor of his evolutionary fairy tale.

3. He says "Blueprint is a misleading metaphor" because "development is conditional and responsive, not deterministic execution."

But this is just a semantic game. He acts like because I said development is based on a blueprint, that means all development must be exactly the same every time. What a dumb objection. Obviously, the blueprint is responsive - I never claimed otherwise. Twins can be born with differences - but they both still have the same overall body plan architecture.

If your argument comes down to nitpicking semantics...you don't have an argument.

4. He then asserts (again) that nothing is designed, everything is inherited from a common ancestor, and that "The deep conservation of developmental genes...is exactly what evolution predicts."

Wrong again!

Evolutionists did not predict the conservation of developmental genes - in fact, they predicted the opposite! Top Evolutionist Ernst Mayr said, in 1963, that "it is astonishing that remotely related species should have so much in common."
Completely unexpected.

God created Life just as the Bible says - “each according to its kind.”
Scientific evidence confirms this.

The most powerful evidence confirming Creation - while proving Theory of Evolution impossible - is the existence of Body Plan Blueprints.

You want to read this thread.
🧵 At the moment of conception, the entire Body Plan Blueprint is already established - from that first cell all the way to full development at birth.

This blueprint is called a Developmental Gene Regulatory Network, and it is directly inherited from parent to offspring.

As the first cells begin to divide and replicate, early divisions are guided by the parent’s embryonic proteins/mRNAs, which determine where these cells will go, how many are created at a time, and begin to establish the overall axis of symmetry of the final body plan.

After the first few dozen to first few thousand cells (depending on the organism) are developed, the embryo’s own genes turn on for the first time - up until this point, they’ve been turned off and all the development has been guided by the parent’s DNA.

The very first genes that switch on in the embryo itself are the core kernel genes of the DGRNs. These are the master switches that set up the front-back, top-bottom, and left-right axes of the final body plan.

After the earliest kernel genes have laid down the basic body diagram, then another set of developmental genes are activated, known as Hox Genes.

Once activated, Hox genes tell different sections along the head-to-tail axis “you will become neck”, “you will become chest”, “you will become lower back”, etc. They have been referred to as the “master conductor” of the developmental system - orchestrating all the complex development of various different systems that form into one organized body.

It’s important to understand something about Hox Genes - they don’t actually create anything. They merely operate by switching on or off hundreds to thousands of downstream protein-coding genes (the ones that actually make bone collagen, muscle proteins, organs, skin, feathers, scales, etc.).

So the full body-plan “blueprint” (the DGRN) is completely loaded at fertilization; nothing fundamentally new is added during development - the embryo just executes the pre-existing program step by step, inherited from its parent.

The Theory of Evolution is an unfalsifiable belief system - not science.

Nearly every major prediction put forward has been contradicted by the evidence - followed by post hoc rescue devices.

Here is a list of contradictions to evolutionary theory and their rescue devices 1. The fossil record

Expectation:
In his book, Darwin predicted that the fossil record should show slow, gradual transitions from less to more complex as we rise through the geologic column.

In his book, The Origin of Species, he wrote: "The number of intermediate varieties… must have been extraordinarily great… and the geological record should show innumerable transitional forms."

Contradiction:
Instead of the expected Gradualism, we observe sudden appearances of fully formed novel body plans – like the Cambrian explosion – followed by stasis, or little to no evolutionary change within the same layer.

Rescue Device:
This pattern of abrupt appearance followed by stasis is so pervasive, it got its own name all the way back in 1972: Punctuated Equilibrium.

But here’s the catch: No observed evolutionary process is capable of producing the type of rapid evolutionary change observed in the fossil record, especially not in the relatively short timeframes (for evolutionary time) involved.

David Raup, former curator at the Field Museum, wrote: “No one has satisfactorily explained how such major transitions could occur in so short a time. The fossil record shows that these changes happened, but the mechanisms remain elusive.”

How can you tell Evolutionary Theory is false?

Its allegedly "strongest" evidence cannot be explained...and it turns out to be better evidence for Creation.

Here are 5 Reasons Why DNA Similarity FAILS as Evidence for Evolutionism, and is Better Evidence for Creation.

Thread🧵 Evolutionists often claim the strongest evidence for their theory is that organisms share similar DNA content - and this similarity is best explained by common ancestry.

But Evolution cannot explain the origin of a single novel DNA sequence, much less account for all life.

The evolution of Single-Cell to Multi-Cell Life never happened.

No evidence even shows it's possible - despite some very misleading evolutionist headlines.

Thread 🧵 First, let’s define multicellularity - what is it exactly?

Unfortunately, evolutionists often equivocate on the word, saying one while meaning the other, which has a tendency to cause confusion in conversation.

Basic Multicellularity: A colony of loosely aggregated single-celled organisms, with very minimal or no specialization or integration. Cells remain largely independent, functioning similarly to free-living single cells. Each cell typically performs all necessary functions for its survival, and there is minimal or no division of labor.

If you took a single cell out of its “multicell” colony, it would most likely still be able to survive to some degree.

True Multicellularity: Involves a highly integrated organism composed of many cells that exhibit interdependence, cellular specialization, and division of labor, forming complex tissues/organs via coordinated development.

In true multicellular organisms, cells differentiate into distinct types (muscle, nerve, skin cells, etc.) with specific functions, working together to support the organism's overall survival and reproduction. This integration is characterized by complex developmental processes, where cells communicate and coordinate through signaling pathways, and individual cells cannot survive independently outside the organism.

There are very large and obvious differences between basic and true multicellularity - the two cannot be confused.

How simple is the simplest eye?

Evolutionists claim the vision system evolved from a simpler 'light sensitive spot.'

But even this simpler system is impossibly complex.

Evolution cannot explain the origin of the vision system - only Creation can. 🧵 Even the "simplest" light sensitive cell still requires an irreducibly complex system of highly sophisticated parts, all working together, from the start, or it doesn't function.

1. Light hits a tiny protein (the building blocks of cells) in a microbe’s membrane called rhodopsin, flipping its retinal "switch."

2. This switch pumps protons across the membrane, creating a gradient.

3. The gradient powers a simple signal, which travels to a data processing center.

4. This signal causes the cell to react: "Let there be light!"

Miss one part? No vision.

Each part only functions in this system - there is no use for any of them outside this specific system.

This specified engineering suggests that each part was originally constructed for this very purpose - designed.

What scientific evidence confirms biblical creation?

Here are 12 strong evidences supporting Biblical Creation.

https://twitter.com/DivinelyDesined/status/1975201400851407106

1. Genetic Data from modern humans confirms mutation rates are too fast for evolutionary timelines.

Mutation rates show Humanity must be less than 10,000 years old.

Humans were created separate & unique.

Not evolved from some ape-like ancestor.

Evolutionists point to genetic similarity in primates & humans as evidence of common ancestry, pointing to things like the GULO "pseudogene."

But this argument is circular at its core.

Thread 🧵 The GULO “Pseudogene” is said to be a “shared mistake” between humans & primates, and this common mistake is best explained by common ancestry.

The GULO Gene produces Vitamin C, but has been relegated to "pseudogene" status since scientists don’t see it active in modern adults.

By “pseudogene,” they mean that this gene is no longer functional - it’s been broken by mutations.

In fact, the GULO Gene looks to have the same broken mutations in the same spots in humans and primates! This similar pattern, they argue, is best explained by common ancestry.

Their story is that the “common ancestor” of both humans and chimps/apes had this gene, it was broken by random mutations, and then it was inherited by the later lineages that evolved to become humans and primates.

But this whole argument is circular, AND it’s simply false - the GULO Gene is not a broken gene.

Life was Intelligently Designed.

The strongest evidence for Intelligent Design in Life:
Irreducible Complexity

Here is everything you need to know about Irreducible Complexity and why it proves, without a doubt, that Life was Created.

Thread 🧵 First: What exactly is Irreducible Complexity?

Irreducible Complexity (IC), or an Irreducibly Complex System (ICS), is a system which requires a minimum amount of specifically designed parts in order to function.

Without all the parts working together, the system doesn’t work.
Lose one part from that minimal threshold, and the whole system fails.

A very popular example of Irreducible Complexity, coined by Ph.D. in Biochemistry Professor Michael Behe, is the mousetrap.

A mousetrap has 5 necessary parts - the base, spring, hammer, latch and trigger.

If the mousetrap is missing any one of those parts, it doesn’t work.

But that's not all it needs…

This evolutionist thinks he refuted my thread arguing Humans & Chimps are not related.

Unfortunately, his rebuttal is filled with handwaving, false assumptions, speculation, and outright ignoring data he doesn't like.

Unfortunately, very common among evolutionists.

Thread🧵

https://twitter.com/doofgeek4011/status/1958412047387168992

1. He starts by claiming that I misrepresented the data.

But instead of showing how I misrepresented the data, he confirms that I did indeed accurately represent the data; he just doesn’t like what all the data says, so he prefers to ignore those parts.

He says the new data “arises from including many repetitive, non-coding sequences that were previously unsequenced; these are regions where alignment between species is inherently difficult.”

His screenshot shows that the “15% difference is largely in sections of DNA that do not even align between human and chimp.”

That’s exactly the point!!!

His argument is like saying, "The parts that align, are similar! But the parts that don’t align are not similar - so we shouldn’t look at those."

No kidding.

Why should we ignore 15% of the genome that doesn’t align?

It would seem John is the one who would prefer to misrepresent the data by ignoring the parts that don’t fit his assumptions.

Chimps & Humans are NOT related.

We’ve heard for decades that Humans & Chimps are related simply because we’re so similar - over 98% genetically the same!

New data proves this false - but evolutionists STILL believe we’re related.

Here is every reason they’re wrong.

Thread🧵 First, a little history on the data…
The talking points from popular evolutionists like Bill Nye, Richard Dawkins, and even secular organizations like the Smithsonian have long been that Humans & Chimps look similar, and even our genes are 98%+ similar, so that MUST mean we’re related via common ancestry in the past.

Evolutionists have been repeating this falsity about genetic similarity for decades - even though it’s been repeatedly proven false.

The secular journal Science even published an article way back in 2007 titled, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” which called this idea a “myth” which “wasn’t the whole story” and stated that this “truism should be retired.”

In the article, they stated that the figure of 1% difference “reflects only base substitutions, not the many stretches of DNA that have been inserted or deleted in the genomes.”

In other words, when the chimp genome had no similar stretch of human DNA, those DNA sequences were ignored.

They also showed the genetic differences between humans & chimps amount to “5 million indels [sequences of multiple nucleotide bases] in each species, and 689 extra genes in humans.”

The human genome is said to contain around 3.097 billion base pairs, while the chimp genome contains around 3.231 billion base pairs.

That makes the chimp genome 4.3% larger than humans, amounting to approximately 134 million base pairs of extra information, not found in humans. This information is largely ignored when making the comparison.

They concluded that if we consider the number of copies of genes in the human & chimp genomes, “human and chimpanzee gene copy numbers differ by a whopping 6.4%.”

Then in 2018, Geneticist Richard Buggs gave a more accurate picture of the true state of alignment between Human & Chimp genomes. He concluded the following:

“The percentage of nucleotides in the human genome that had one-to-one exact matches in the chimpanzee genome was 84.38%.”

He went on to say, “As 5% of the human genome is still unassembled, and 5% seems to be CNVs relative to chimp, and 4% is unaligned to the chimp genome, I cannot agree with Dennis Venema and Steve Schaffner that “95% is the best estimate we have for the genome-wide identity of chimps and humans.”

To make matters worse, the human Y-chromosome is radically different from the chimp genome.

In January 2010, a paper from the journal Nature titled, “Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content,” found that Y chromosomes in humans & chimps “differ radically in sequence structure and gene content,” showing “extraordinary divergence” where “wholesale renovation is the paramount theme.”

The paper goes on to say, “the Chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the Human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans…More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome…”

Only 30% of the Chimp Y Chromosome shares any similarity with the Human Chromosome.

These are major differences.

Fast forward to 2025, and new ground-breaking research has confirmed that Humans & Chimps are not 98%+ genetically similar.

This research is so ground-breaking because, for the first time, the research team published complete sequences of ape genomes that were created from scratch, rather than using the human genome as a template to "fill in the gaps" as they did with past research data.

They found the following:

1. At least 12.5% - 13.3% of the chimp & human genomes represent a “gap difference” between the two - where they are so different, they cannot be aligned.
2. On top of that, there are significant sections of the two genomes that show “short nucleotide variations” which differ by about 1.5%.

Add those together and we can calculate the total difference between human & chimp genomes is closer to 14% - 14.9% - which perfectly aligns with the data released by Richard Buggs, who calculated 84% - 85% similarity.

So now that we know, definitively, that Humans & Chimps cannot possibly be 98%+ similar - why do we still see Evolutionists repeating this talking point and using it to argue for common ancestry between Humans & Chimps?

My argument on Orphan Genes…REFUTED?!

Not exactly.

I recently argued how the existence of Orphan Genes is strong evidence for Creation and against Evolutionism.

John Smith here has attempted to refute my argument.

I think he failed - what do you think?

Thread 🧵

https://twitter.com/doofgeek4011/status/1956894090844684790

Let’s go through it:

First, he makes some strong statements up front, that my “claim that orphan genes contradict evolution rests on a misunderstanding of biology and on a theologically flawed assumption about how God creates.”

So I have a misunderstanding of biology AND flawed assumptions about what the Bible says. If true, I would have a lot to think about.

Let’s see if that’s true.

Is there any evidence that is impossible for Evolution to explain, which can only be explained by Intelligent Design?

Orphan Genes

An absolute contradiction of Evolutionism - and a clear sign of Special Creation.

Thread🧵 What are Orphan Genes?

Before we get to that - what even is a Gene?

Genes are sequences of DNA that carry the coded information for producing Proteins.

Did Adam & Eve really exist?
How long ago did they live?

Here is the evidence from peer-reviewed genetics studies showing all humans came from one original couple, only 6-12,000 years old - perfectly in line with Scripture.

Thread🧵 The evolutionary says that modern humans evolved ~200-300,000 years ago from a large population of ~10,000-100,000 individuals.

But the Bible teaches that all humans descended from Adam & Eve, around 6,000-7,500 years ago.

So what does the data say?

There is no possible way to fit the Theory of Evolution into the Creation account in Genesis.

...not without completely ignoring the obvious meaning of the Words and changing the text of Scripture itself to force the evolutionary view into God's clearly written Word.

Thread🧵 The phrase "according to its kind" is repeated in Genesis 1:1-27 TEN TIMES in total.

Every time God tells about creating something living, He specifically tells us that He created it "according to its kind."

He repeats this phrase, over and over again - like He is trying to emphasize something important for us.

Claiming "bad design" as evidence against a Creator is another terrible argument based on false assumptions.

Here are three reasons why this argument fails:

Thread🧵 Assumption #1:
When one says something is "bad design," they assume to know the intent of the Designer, which in the case of Special Creation, they cannot possibly know.

How would anyone know if God had a specific reason for designing things the way He did? Just because you might see some perceived flaw in a design, you don't know enough to be able to claim it's a "bad design." That's your opinion; it's not an argument.

New research has PROVEN that humans & chimps are definitively NOT 98%+ genetically similar.

Creationists have long claimed that humans & chimps are at MOST 86% genetically similar - and this has now been confirmed!

Thread 🧵👇 This ground-breaking research showing humans & chimps are less genetically similar than previously stated was published in Nature over a month ago in April, 2025.

Why haven't you heard about it?
Why is it not making bigger waves?

One would think this research would make major headlines, since it clearly overturns the long-held & oft-repeated false evolutionary claim that is used to support the hypothesis of the evolutionary origins of modern humanity.

But the total percent difference is not directly stated anywhere in the research paper - that number is buried in the supplemental materials. One has to really dig through the data to discover it.

And the Nature article reporting on the research doesn't mention it either - why?

Why is the data being obfuscated instead of stated clearly?

Are the Evolutionists trying to downplay or hide this contradictory evidence which confirms what Creationists have been saying all along?

What happened to "follow the evidence?"

It seems the Evolutionists are definitely not interested in highlighting this new research - as evidenced by the way the data is practically hidden away within the research paper, as well as the utter lack of discussion surrounding the research.

So, what did they find, exactly?

Only intelligence creates novel, specified, semantic information such as what we see in DNA.

But Evolutionists claim that evolutionary mechanisms are capable of producing Novel Genes, pointing to papers like this one.

Does this actually show Novel Gene Creation?

Thread🧵 This research paper claims to show "how genomic changes facilitate new gene emergence in populations."

They do this through the use of Comparative Genomics.

By comparing the genes between species, and some higher taxonomic categories, they infer the evolutionary history of certain genes and construct what they believe to be the rough age of different genes.

They classify the genes like this:

Ancient Genes are genes conserved across a broad range of species, including distant relatives like other vertebrates (mammals, amphibians, etc.). If a gene is found in many diverse species, it’s considered old, likely originating deep in evolutionary history.

Established Genes are genes specific to the species lineage or closely related species (within the same taxonomic family). They are younger than ancient genes but shared across species populations, indicating they arose before the populations allegedly diverged.

New Genes lack detectable homology outside a specific species. They are classified as the youngest, having emerged recently in evolutionary terms.

More misleading evolutionist headlines!

This paper purports to explain how RNA can evolve into a self-sustained RNA network which could show how the first steps of pre-biotic life evolved.

But NOTHING in this experiment is possible in the real world.

Thread 🧵 1. They Used Synthetic RNA

The researchers created their own synthetic RNA specifically designed for this experiment.

The design ensured it could self-replicate under controlled conditions while being simple enough to track mutations and evolutionary changes.

This RNA was designed specifically to be a minimal replicator for study, not a robust survivor.

This RNA is not found naturally anywhere in biological life - its only purpose is what the researchers needed in this specific experiment.

Intelligent Design, right at the outset of the experiment.

If the Theory of Evolution is false and life really was created by God, how would we know?

There is powerful scientific evidence which supports Creation and makes Evolutionism impossible.

Here are TEN pieces of scientific evidence which make Creation certain 🧵 1. Information

Life contains Specified Information - complex & specifically ordered info conveys inherent meaning, function & purpose.

All human experience evidence shows that natural processes are incapable of producing SI - only an intelligent mind can engineer it.

A true speciation event has never been observed.

Evolutionists assert that micro over long periods of time leads to macro-evolution - "Small changes add up!"

They point to speciation events as evidence.

None of these alleged speciation events are true speciation.

Thread🧵
First: What exactly is speciation?

Speciation is the evolutionary process by which populations evolve to become distinct species.

But what exactly is a species?

This is where the biggest problem lies: there is no settled, standard definition of what constitutes a species.

So, evolutionists do what they always do, and they use semantics to force the evidence to fit their paradigm.

They cherry-pick the definition of species that best fits their preferred narrative.

Jonathan Wells gave a perfect explanation in his 2006 book, The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design:

"In their 2004 book Speciation, evolutionary biologists Jerry A. Coyne and H. Allen Orr point out that there are more than 25 definitions of “species” [p. 25-39].

How can we choose among them?

“Biologists want species concepts to be useful for some purpose,” write Coyne and Orr, “but differ in what that purpose should be. We can think of at least five such goals.”

A species concept is useful, they explain, if it (1) helps biologists to classify organisms; (2) corresponds to the entities in nature; (3) helps us understand how those entities originate; (4) represents evolutionary history; and (5) applies to as many organisms as possible.

Coyne and Orr acknowledge that “no species concept will accomplish even most of these purposes,” but they “feel that, when deciding on a species concept, one should first identify the nature of one’s ‘species problem,’ and then choose the concept best at solving that problem.”

Like most other Darwinists, Coyne and Orr choose Ernst Mayr’s “biological species concept” (BSC):

“Species are groups of interbreeding natural populations that are reproductively isolated from other such groups.”

Why? “The most important advantage of the BSC is that it immediately suggests a research program to explain the existence of the entities it defines.”

Coyne and Orr “feel that it is less important to worry about species status than to recognize that the process of speciation involves acquiring reproductive barriers.”