Bookmark and Share

Monday, February 22, 2021

DNA cannot be explained by Darwin's cult - neither its creation, nor its design.

Old ages and DNA just don't add up.

by StFerdIII


DNA does not long survive in the natural environment.  It is impossible to find DNA or soft tissue dated ‘millions’ of years.  DNA is inherently unstable and quickly decomposes.  When ‘science’ now an asset of far-left groupthink and atheopathology, dictates that ‘we have found ‘Dinosaur xyz fossil’ and it contains soft tissue dated to ’75 million years ago’, it is a fiction premised on philosophy and world-views based on where it is in the ‘strata’, which assumes of course millions-billions-soon trillions of years of ‘slow accumulation’.  No evidence has ever been presented to justify the stratification of the earth’s geology, first proposed inter-alia by a lawyer Charles Lyell and rightly ridiculed in the 19th century.  Who said science or civilisation ‘evolves’ into ‘better systems’?  Devolution in intelligence and understanding is equally probable.


The Darwin cult announces the ‘oldest DNA evah found’.  Which of course proves evolution, except it doesn’t and has nothing to do with ‘evolving’.


World’s oldest DNA reveals how mammoths evolved (

“This article explains that the age of the DNA was not measured directly but was inferred from “geological data” (stratigraphy based on evolutionary assumptions) and the “molecular clock” hypothesis, which assumes that mutations occur at predictable rates over evolutionary time.

This is the first time that DNA has been sequenced and authenticated from million-year-old specimens, and extracting the DNA from the samples was challenging. The scientists found that only minute amounts of DNA remained in the samples and that the DNA was degraded into very small fragments.

“This DNA is incredibly old. The samples are a thousand times older than Viking remains, and even pre-date the existence of humans and Neanderthals,” says senior author Love Dalén, a Professor of evolutionary genetics at the Centre for Palaeogenetics in Stockholm.

We sequenced the oldest ever DNA, from million-year-old mammoths (The Conversation). Love Dalén himself wrote this article. He tells how difficult it was to piece together the DNA.

The DNA sequences also had another characteristic of very old DNA – they were  extremely fragmented. Instead of the longer DNA sequences found in younger, better preserved mammoth samples from the permafrost, we only had short ones.

This caused another problem, because shorter sequences are increasingly difficult to place in their correct position of the genome. They can also be confused with contamination. To avoid this we had to discard all the sequences below a certain length threshold, which was painful but necessary.

He found another surprise; “most adaptations characteristic of the woolly mammoth were already present in its ancestral species that roamed the Siberian steppe over a million years ago.” This indicated to his team that the speciation event that led to the woolly mammoth did not require a fast adaptation rate. The adapted genes were already there. As for time limits,

We think permafrost preserved material holds the promise of even older DNA. However, since the oldest permafrost deposits are dated to the Early Pleistocene –around 2.6 million years ago – this may, sadly, put an upper limit on what is possible.

Source paper: van der Valk, Love Dalén et al., Million-year-old DNA sheds light on the genomic history of mammoths. Nature (2021).


The conclusion of the above is that your worldview determines your ‘science’.  These academics just assume millions of years of age for the mammoth based on flawed geology and a corrupt view of ‘mutations’ which detract functionality and render decomposition and entropy.  They further admit that there was no evolutionary processes at work.  The mammals of later dates were the same as the mammoth of this assumed long-age date.  In any event, they now have a problem.  Even given the long-age mendacity they now admit that DNA if frozen, and only if frozen, cannot exceed 2 million or so Darwinian years.  This renders the entire corpus of the cult irrelevant and unscientific.  Of course if truly independent scientists were given access to this specimen, the age of the mammoth, would be quite recent, but the cult of Darwin would never suffer such analysis or conclusion.