http://superfoodexperts.com/rawforlife - Watch Entire Movie Here
Raw for Life is a 2 disc DVD set with 30 experts explaining the benefits of a raw lifestyle. It contains top chefs preparing their signature dishes. Its an encyclopedia of the raw lifestyle.
Some experts in DVD include:
Rev. Michael Beckwith
David Wolfe (Avacado)
Fred Bisci, Ph.D.
Joel Fuhrman, M.D.
Gabriel Cousens, M.D., M.D.H, D.D.
Bruce Lipton, Ph.D.
Dr. Brian Clement, Ph.D., N.M.D., C.N.
David Life and Sharon Gannon
Gary Null, Ph.d
Julian Whitaker, m.d.
"Raw For Life " is an A-to-Z encyclopedia of Raw Food, perfect for beginners and Raw Food enthusiasts. This two-disc DVD inspires people with the Raw Food philosophy, the wisdom of eating a raw food diet, important medical facts and nutritional information.
We have combined the expertise of Doctors and Nutritionists with testimonials from celebrities, athletes, and chefs who live the Raw Food Lifestyle. Our goal was to create a product that would empower people to take control of their health and happiness. In "Raw For Life", you will find everything you need to transition to a healthier state of being.
This DVD is perfect for Vegetarians, Vegans, and Raw Food Vegans looking for new recipes and resources; someone coping with diabetes, heart disease, or excess weight, those seeking to reverse their aging process; athletes looking to improve their performance; actors, dancers, and other performers looking for a healthy way to maintain their weight and image; anyone looking to live longer, be stronger, perform at their best, and get their nutrition on the right track!
Buy it as a gift, for your friends, family, or yourself. This is the perfect gift for a loved one year round.
http://superfoodexperts.com/rawforlife - Watch Entire Movie Here
New Scientist: Darwin Was Wrong!
The tree of life, one of the iconic concepts of evolution, has turned
out to be a figment of our imagination, says Graham Lawton
Why Darwin was wrong about the (genetic) tree of life: - 21 January 2009
Excerpt: Syvanen recently compared 2000 genes that are common to humans, frogs, sea squirts, sea urchins, fruit flies and nematodes. In theory, he should have been able to use the gene sequences to construct an evolutionary tree showing the relationships between the six animals. He failed. The problem was that different genes told contradictory evolutionary stories. This was especially true of sea-squirt genes. Conventionally, sea squirts - also known as tunicates - are lumped together with frogs, humans and other vertebrates in the phylum Chordata, but the genes were sending mixed signals. Some genes did indeed cluster within the chordates, but others indicated that tunicates should be placed with sea urchins, which aren't chordates. "Roughly 50 per cent of its genes have one evolutionary history and 50 per cent another," Syvanen says. ."We've just annihilated the tree of life. It's not a tree any more, it's a different topology entirely," says Syvanen. "What would Darwin have made of that?"
Since evolutionists continually misrepresent the true state of the evidence for molecular sequences, here are several more comments and articles, by leading experts, on the incongruence of molecular sequences to Darwin's theory:
Testing the Orchard Model and the NCSE’s Claims of “Nested Patterns” Supporting a “Tree of Life”
Excerpt: Perhaps the reason why different genes are telling “different evolutionary stories” and “one group suggests one biogeographic pattern, and another group suggests another” is because the genes and organisms have wholly different stories to tell, namely stories that indicate that not all living organisms are ancestrally related, thereby fulfilling a testable prediction of the orchard model.
Botching Evolutionary Science - Casey Luskin - April 2009
Excerpt: The textbook touts the cytochrome C tree, but it ignores the cytochrome B tree, which has striking differences from the classical animal phylogeny. As one article in Trends in Ecology and Evolution stated: “[T]he mitochondrial cytochrome b gene implied,, an absurd phylogeny of mammals, regardless of the method of tree construction. Cats and whales fell within primates, grouping with simians (monkeys and apes) and strepsirhines (lemurs, bush-babies and lorises) to the exclusion of tarsiers. Cytochrome b is probably the most commonly sequenced gene in vertebrates, making this surprising result even more disconcerting.” (See Michael S. Y. Lee, “Molecular Phylogenies Become Functional,” Trends in Ecology and Evolution, Vol. 14: 177 (1999).)
Congruence Between Molecular and Morphological Phylogenies - Colin Patterson
Excerpt: "As morphologists with high hopes of molecular systematics, we end this survey with our hopes dampened. Congruence between molecular phylogenies is as elusive as it is in morphology and as it is between molecules and morphology."
'The theory makes a prediction (for amino acid and nucleotide sequence studies); we've tested it, and the prediction is falsified precisely.'
Dr. Colin Patterson Senior Principal Scientific Officer in the Paleontology Department at the British Museum
Walter T. Brown, In the Beginning (1989), p. 7
Excerpt: "There is not a trace of evidence on the molecular level for the traditional evolutionary series: simple sea life > fish> amphibians > reptiles> mammals. In general, each of the many categories of organisms appear to be equally isolated."
Bones, molecules...or both?
Excerpt: Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don't resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled?,,, When biologists talk of the 'evolution wars', they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging (between Darwinists) within systematics.
The universal ancestor - Carl Woese
Excerpt: No consistent organismal phylogeny has emerged from the many individual protein phylogenies so far produced. Phylogenetic incongruities can be seen everywhere in the universal tree, from its root to the major branchings within and among the various taxa to the makeup of the primary groupings themselves.
Shilling for Darwin — The wildly irresponsible evolutionist - William Dembski - Oct. 2009
Excerpt: The incongruence of gene and species trees is a standing obstacle, or research problem, in molecular phylogenetics.
Do orthologous gene phylogenies really support tree-thinking?
Excerpt: We conclude that we simply cannot determine if a large portion of the genes have a common history.,,, CONCLUSION: Our phylogenetic analyses do not support tree-thinking.
Evolution: Charles Darwin was wrong about the tree of life - 2009
Excerpt: "We have no evidence at all that the tree of life is a reality,"
Eric Bapteste, an evolutionary biologist
Uprooting The Tree Of Life - W. Ford Doolittle
Excerpt: as DNA sequences of complete genomes have become increasingly available, my group and others have noted patterns that are disturbingly at odds with the prevailing beliefs. http://people.ibest.uidaho.edu/~bree/courses/2_Doolittle_2000.pdf
DNA Comparisons between Humans and Chimps - Fazale Rana
Excerpt: It is interesting that when evolutionary biologists discuss genetic comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes, the fact that, again, as much as 25 percent of the two genomes won’t align receives no mention. Instead, the focus is only on the portions of the genome that display a high-degree of similarity. This distorted emphasis makes the case for the evolutionary connection between humans and chimps seem more compelling than it may actually be.
A recent, more accurate, human/chimp genome comparison study, by Richard Buggs in 2008, has found when he rigorously compared the recently completed sequences in the genomes of chimpanzees to the genomes of humans side by side, the similarity between chimps and man fell to slightly below 70%! Why is this study ignored since the ENCODE study has now implicated 100% high level functionality across the entire human genome? Finding compelling evidence that implicates 100% high level functionality across the entire genome clearly shows the similarity is not to be limited to the very biased 'only 1.5% of the genome' studies of evolutionists.
10-10-2008 - Dr Richard Buggs - research geneticist at the University of Florida
...Therefore the total similarity of the genomes could be below 70%.
Moreover, the following 'statistical test' found only a 62% similarity between chimp-human genomes rather than the 95%-98.5% similarity touted by many papers of evolutionists:
A simple statistical test for the alleged “99% genetic identity” between humans and chimps - September 2010
Excerpt: The results obtained are statistically valid. The same test was previously run on a sampling of 1,000 random 30-base patterns and the percentages obtained were almost identical with those obtained in the final test, with 10,000 random 30-base patterns. When human and chimp genomes are compared, the X chromosome is the one showing the highest degree of 30BPM similarity (72.37%), while the Y chromosome shows the lowest degree of 30BPM similarity (30.29%). On average the overall 30BPM similarity, when all chromosomes are taken into consideration, is approximately 62%.
Post of interest refuting 98% similarity claim:
Moreover, when scientists did a actual Nucleotide by Nucleotide sequence comparison, to find the 'real world' difference between the genomes of chimps and Humans, they found the difference was even more profound than what Dr. Richard Buggs, or the statistical test, had estimated:
Do Human and Chimpanzee DNA Indicate an Evolutionary Relationship?
Excerpt: the authors found that only 48.6% of the whole human genome matched chimpanzee nucleotide sequences. [Only 4.8% of the human Y chromosome could be matched to chimpanzee sequences.]
Even this more recent evolution friendly article found the differences in the protein coding genes of the Y chromosome between chimps and Humans to be 'striking':
Recent Genetic Research Shows Chimps More Distant From Humans,,, - Jan. 2010
Excerpt: “many of the stark changes between the chimp and human Y chromosomes are due to gene loss in the chimp and gene gain in the human” since “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.”,,,, “Even more striking than the gene loss is the rearrangement of large portions of the chromosome. More than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome, and vice versa,,,"
Chimp and human Y chromosomes evolving faster than expected - Jan. 2010
Excerpt: "The results overturned the expectation that the chimp and human Y chromosomes would be highly similar. Instead, they differ remarkably in their structure and gene content.,,, The chimp Y, for example, has lost one third to one half of the human Y chromosome genes.
Many times materialists will try to establish scientific validity for their evolution of man from apes by pointing to mere suggestive genetic similarities, of one type or another, all the while ignoring profound dissimilarities.
For prime example of the flimsy 'similarity evidence', used by materialists to try to make their case for evolution, most materialists are adamant Darwinian evolution is proven true when we look at the supposed 98.8% genetic similarity between chimps and man. Though suggestive, the gene similarity, even if it were true which it is not, is not nearly good enough to be considered conclusive scientific proof. Primarily this 'lack of conclusiveness' is due to concerns with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and with the Law of Conservation of Information. But of more pressing concern, body plans are not even encoded solely by the DNA code in the first place. This inability of body plans to be reduced directly to the DNA code is clearly shown by Cortical Inheritance and 'epigenetic' studies.
Cortical Inheritance: The Crushing Critique Against Genetic Reductionism - Arthur Jones - video
“Live memory” of the cell, the other hereditary memory of living systems - 2005
Excerpt: To understand this notion of “live memory”, its role and interactions with DNA must be resituated; indeed, operational information belongs as much to the cell body and to its cytoplasmic regulatory protein components and other endogenous or exogenous ligands as it does to the DNA database. We will see in Section 2, using examples from recent experiments in biology, the principal roles of “live memory” in relation to the four aspects of cellular identity, memory of form, hereditary transmission and also working memory.
The Case Against Molecular Reductionism - Rupert Sheldrake and Bruce Lipton - video
The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010
Excerpt: So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous influence over their functions.,,, So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used.,,, Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent.
This inability for the DNA code to account for body plans is also clearly shown by extensive mutation studies to the DNA of different organisms which show 'exceedingly rare' beneficial morphological changes from mutations to the DNA code.
The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories - Stephen Meyer
"Neo-Darwinism seeks to explain the origin of new information, form, and structure as a result of selection acting on randomly arising variation at a very low level within the biological hierarchy, mainly, within the genetic text. Yet the major morphological innovations depend on a specificity of arrangement at a much higher level of the organizational hierarchy, a level that DNA alone does not determine. Yet if DNA is not wholly responsible for body plan morphogenesis, then DNA sequences can mutate indefinitely, without regard to realistic probabilistic limits, and still not produce a new body plan. Thus, the mechanism of natural selection acting on random mutations in DNA cannot in principle generate novel body plans, including those that first arose in the Cambrian explosion."
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
This following video and article are much more clear for explaining exactly why mutations to the DNA do not control Body Plan morphogenesis, since the mutations are the ‘bottom rung of the ladder’ as far as the 'higher levels of the layered information’ of the cell are concerned:
Stephen Meyer on Craig Venter, Complexity Of The Cell & Layered Information
Getting Over the Code Delusion (Epigenetics) - Talbot - November 2010 - Excellent Article for explaining exactly why epigentics falsifies the neo-Darwinian paradigm of genetic reductionism:
This following video gives a glimpse of this 'higher level' information in action:
Fearfully and Wonderfully Made - Glimpses At Human Development In The Womb - video
Chimps are not like humans - May 2004
Excerpt: the International Chimpanzee Chromosome 22 Consortium reports that 83% of chimpanzee chromosome 22 proteins are different from their human counterparts,,, The results reported this week showed that "83% of the genes have changed between the human and the chimpanzee—only 17% are identical—so that means that the impression that comes from the 1.2% [sequence] difference is [misleading]. In the case of protein structures, it has a big effect," Sakaki said.
Chimp chromosome creates puzzles - 2004
Excerpt: However, the researchers were in for a surprise. Because chimps and humans appear broadly similar, some have assumed that most of the differences would occur in the large regions of DNA that do not appear to have any obvious function. But that was not the case. The researchers report in 'Nature' that many of the differences were within genes, the regions of DNA that code for proteins. 83% of the 231 genes compared had differences that affected the amino acid sequence of the protein they encoded. And 20% showed "significant structural changes". In addition, there were nearly 68,000 regions that were either extra or missing between the two sequences, accounting for around 5% of the chromosome.,,, "we have seen a much higher percentage of change than people speculated." The researchers also carried out some experiments to look at when and how strongly the genes are switched on. 20% of the genes showed significant differences in their pattern of activity.
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:
Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis."
Man is indeed as unique, as different from all other animals, as had been traditionally claimed by theologians and philosophers. Evolutionist Ernst Mayr
“Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
Anthropologist Ian Tattersall
(curator at the American Museum of Natural History)
Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis