ForeverHers,


Eh?


*shrugs* HOW exactly it got here is the great unproveable as you keep saying. We all know THAT it got here. We just don't know how and there's no way to know how to a degree of certainty that would arise to 'proof' though there are constant ongoing lab experiments trying to create RNA and I read last month (in the NY Times but I couldn't find the article) about precursors to life (biological enzymes or something like that) had been manufactured in a lab. (I know, I know, it's a terrible reference -- I'll see if I can find the article).

Once life happened (primordal soup or divine intervention), then what?

I'm not trying to ignore an important question at all. In fact, if you want to be chronological about this whole thing, that was the very beginnings of this thread -- how old is the Earth really? What do the data indicate?


In this sentence, evolving is used in the sense of a gradual change over a long period of time. It's it clearly not being used in the sense of the biological evolution of organisms.


It isn't inappropriate for you to use it at all -- as long as you use it in the proper context. Evolving has come to be a synonym for gradual change over time in the context of some sort of selection of 'what works." So we can evolve better business processes. We can evolve a language. We can evolve a relationship. It can be applied to inorganic as well as organic processes.

Even in that context, though, it does not speak to the origin of those processes. When we evolve a language, we might start at the beginning of that language but we don't spend a lot of time worrying about how all the pieces of the beginning got there. When we evolve a business practice, we look at the history of business practices but we don't worry too much about how the company's founders filled out the documents of incorporation, etc.

Origins are important. The process is important.


Even if you don't know the exact process of reproduction (fertilization, gestation), and for many centuries people probably didn't - that doesn't mean that the child doesn't exist. By existing, we can assume the child came to exist. It would be silly to say the child isn't here - changing and growing - if we can't explain reproduction!

Should we seek the answers? Absolutely! Does that mean that none of our observations about that child can be valid until we know everything? In my opinion, no.

Whether or not we know the origin of life, we do have multiple observations over the years about how life has changed. We know that life exists. Those observations are not rendered false because we're working 'backwards and not forwards.' Sometimes that's the way to work a problem. Certainly we've made some guesses as to how life arose and there are people who are working to validate those guesses. Those hypotheses might be wrong. We simply don't know yet.

As for Creationism, I think there are a lot of questions there that I haven't seen answers to yet (they may exist and I haven't seen them or they may not exist). For example, the data (fossil record) suggest that there were periods of time when mammals did not exist (ie. no evidence of mammals). This seems to indicate that all the things present today were not created at once.. How does Creationism explain the extinction of dinosaurs and the lack of any mammalian or human remains from those time periods? And, once again, that seems to go back to the age of the Earth question. If you don't accept a geologic time scale, then what is put in it's place?

My biggest 'beef', if you will, with the discussion of Creationism vs. Evolution is that Creationists seem to bring a paucity of information to the table. So far, the discussion seems to be asking for the evolution side to 'prove it' and, if they can't, then there is a push to accept the Creationist side. I don't believe in "If you can't convince me, then you have to believe as I do!" approach.

You think the Earth is 10,000 years old? Fine! Where's the data to suggest this and how do you compare and contrast it to the data that have been collected which suggests that the Earth is 4.x billion years old? Describe the method you used and why you think it's superior to the method that is currently used to date the Earth. How does it better explain or predict our observations about the world today.

You think that a life was created fully formed as it is today? (?- not even sure that's what you think so I apologize if I put words in your mouth here) Fine! Where's the data to suggest this and how do you compare and contrast it to the data that exist which doesn't find evidence of some life (humans, mammals) in the past? Does it fit with your Earth age model? What is your method to determine this information and how does it compare to the methods that are describe by the current model? How does it better explain or predict our observations about the world today?

Forget about the politics. Where is the data? How was it collected? How is it justified? NOT just on the evolution side (they have a considerable head start). Even if you 'disprove' evolution, then that does not 'prove' creationism the way you describe it. There is no false dichotomy. There might be some other explanation of how life came to be what we observe that involves neither creationism or evolution.

Finally, the tone of the argument seems to be "against evolution" rather than in advocacy of a different idea. I'm always uneasy about such arguments because arguing against something doesn't 'prove' whatever seems to be presented as an alternative. As I've said in the past, most of what I find written about Creationism, isn't what they believe about what actually did happen -- only what they beleive didn't happen (evolution). It's a one sided debate/argument.

I'm still hoping to see what the data that have been collected are. It is hard to even have an intelligent discussion about the two when one side is so poorly understood. I still don't have that book -- I'm taking a class and it's in the last week so I've just been busy. After next week, my time should loosen up some.

Mys

I have always felt that biological life defies the third law of thermodynamics - at least for a while (i.e. until it dies). So, depending on where you define the boundary conditions, it either obeys the law or defies it. I still go with defies it. And if one human embryo can defy this law, evolution gives it the finger and tells thermodynamics to get stuffed.

There is a huge difference between evolution and natural selection. Anybody who denies natural selection is simply ignorant. Darwin did not have to travel to the Galapagos to figure that one out. All he needed to do was visit my high school. Now applying natural selection to evolution is as equally an act of faith as is believing in the great flood. So let's not confuse evolution and natural selection. Many people do. They accept natural selection as evident (as they should) and then decide to believe in evolution. Sorry but you just can't get there from her without faith. Evolution is just as much faith as Creationism.

One flaw in the scientific model us that, since God cannot be proven, another explanation must be found. So, by the very definition of the scientific model, God simply cannot exist. QED. Convoluted logic at best.

Has anybody explained who that woman was that Cain married when he left the garden of Eden and where she came from? (oh - Nod - that's right). I need to go back and study those begats a bit more. I don't quite follow the timeline. I am sure it is in this thread somewhere but I have ignored most of the thread so don't know for sure. Was she his sister? If so then I think we now have conclusive proof that the garden of Eden was not in Iraq but rather in Arkansas as I always suspected.

I also am not enough of a quantum physicist to know enough about muons to grasp how the atomic model works. Maybe ToddAC could interject here. I don't see why electrons being naturally attracted to protons don't just go there and get it over with. Oh is it because of the mass and velocity exactly counterbalancing the attractive force maintain them in perpetual syncronous orbit except for those occasional quantun leaps and falls? Pretty convenient and very fortunate. Could somebody with a nuclear physics background help me understand how the atom exists?

I wish I could be as closed-minded as some. My life would be much simpler. I hate grey. Give me black or white any day.

piojitos - The answer to your question is his sister. I don't know if Arkansas was the place, or West Virginia, or San Francisco, or somewhere in Iraq, or whereever.




Interesing observation, piojitos, but beware that strident opposition to that may be directed your way.

Myschae - No doubt you might be hearing a "tone" as I hear much more than than a "tone." I hear a tone that is rising in crescendo of an argument that is "against creationism." The intent would seem to be to limit or end discussion based in ridicule rather than discussion of "opposing ideas." That has not surprised me because WAT has always gone directly to that derisive tone, and then others tend to feed off of his tone. The lack of patience in the "demands" placed is interesting. In your case, you asked of a book reference that you could start with to learn more about creationist thoughts and examination of data and I gave you that reference. I don't know if you've acquired that particular book yet, or if you have, whether or not you have read it yet, but due to the short timeframe from request to reference to today, lacking any statement from you, I tend to think you have not even acquired the book as of yet, let alone read it. So we are back to "opinions" again. Opinions are fine, we all have them, but they do NOT automatically confer truth or "one opinion over another opinion."

Yet you seem to think that I either have all the data and arguments at my finger tips, ready to "win the war" that has been going on for some 200 years, or that I have no data on which to base my "belief" in creationism. When I don't have the data ready to be transmitted instantly, or when I don't have the time to do ONLY this discussion, or when the discusssion gets sidetracked into WAT's "I don't have a faith in evolution" sort of nonsensical argument, immediately the mere "idea" of creation begins to be ridiculed. It's interesting to me that WAT gets a "Free Pass" on questions he won't answer, or doesn't have time for either himself or his assistant to answer, and little old "me" gets demands for "instant answers." It's interesting that WAT gets a "Free Pass" for his opinions and statements, especially in areas he freely admits he has no expertise in, while demanding that I have "all the answers" and a Ph.D. in every subject before I can have an opinion or the "right" to talk about the subject. In short, I am supposed to "play by their rules" instead of having a discussion of opposing ideas. NOT playing by their "preconceived rules" results in derision and belittling as the way to silence the "opposition."

WAT plays his "tone" of derision about "Kinds," while having no concept of "common ancestor" types of things. I'd love to ask WAT what he calls the common ancestors, and then we could perhaps discuss "definitions of terms."

You, along with WAT, 2long, Krust, et. al, want to narrow evolution to just Biological Evolution. I don't have any problem discussing Biological Evolution as a theory, but I am intrigued by the lengths evolutionists go to deny creationism while simultaneously refusing to deal with the FIRST lifeform (whatever they might want to call it) because biological evolution (if it exists on the scale evolutionists want to believe) requires that something first "evolved" into life. What WAT and others want to separate is "origins" from "biological evolution" and NOT call origins "evolution" because there were no self-replicating biological processes available until the FIRST living thing "evolved" from the "soup," or whereever it came from.

Just one question to start with, for example, with direct bearing on the question of "biological evolution" if I may.

Let's assume for the moment that "origins" gave rise to a living organism from whatever process one wants to call it(random chance, evolution, etc.). All of a sudden "one day" the necessary component parts that make up a "living thingy" (whatever one might choose to call it) line up in "just the right order" to "create" a living organism where none existed before. What kept this living organism alive long enough for any "evolution" to occur? Obviously evolutionists are NOT going to argue that anything more than the most simplistic organism that Biology would call living could have "miraculously appeared" out of the "soup." So what kept that (I assume with no "proof this next word) fragile, "one of kind," organism alive long enough to procreate and survive in what would have been, heretofore, a hostile to life environment?

It simply is not enough to assume that just because there IS life today that ONLY random chance and biological evolution were the CAUSE of life to begin with, much less to account for the diversity of ALL life, not just animal life.

My question about Mt. Everest, for example, was met with a "derisive tone" that the mountains WERE much much lower "at some time in the past" and then were thrust up through "plate tectonics" over the ages. Now is not the time to go into all of that, but let me simply say that the "Great Flood" says essentially the same thing. It's interesting if you think about it that evolutionists still deny the Great Flood, but have pretty much moved away from the Uniformitarian model to one that now goes "part way" to the Great Flood(Global Catastrophe) and argues for Local Catastrophies, occuring many times over great periods of time, to explain what IS found that obviously argues against Uniformitarian theory.

I have NO problem with theories being discarded if facts don't support them, so I commend evolutionists, geologists in particular, for "coming part way" at least. I understand that there are other reasons that might keep them from "coming all the way" to a Creation Model/Global Noahic Great Flood Model, but it is at the least interesting to see them begin to move in the direction that "better explains" the data that IS found(i.e. millions and millions of dead things buried in the sedimentary rocks all over the world).

WAT is "famous" for his appeal to a "political agenda" as an argument against creationism while somehow missing the fact that he is championing a "political agenda" himself.

Regardless, I'll see what I can do type up some data for you.

But probably not today as I'll be involved with birthday "things" today. So I'll ask again for patience, if I may.

rs0522 - You may have misread what I said to Myschae. What I said was:



The "standard" evolutionist response would along the lines of "sure, if you could prove it beyond all doubt, but even then I might still want ALL the areas of theory to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt before I accept the creation IS how things came about and evolution is not."

Maybe. But the difference between you and me is that I will listen with an open mind.

Perhaps. But I wonder how many of the strident evolutionists will listen with an open mind as you may be considering the "difference between you and me"?

If your mind is open and undecided on the issue, that is good.

What DOES it mean to listen with an open mind?

What difference does it make? It is apparently not a requirement for this thread.

Oh and i do not believe in Evolution. I also don't believe in a 6000 year old Earth.

ForeverHers,


My intent is to figure out how creationism explains what we observe.


Maybe you missed this in my last post:


Basically, I think we agree. It is very hard to have anything approaching an intelligent discussion about the subject without having a real understanding of what is being discussed. I would say that you have a distinct advanage in the discussion because you are at least familiar with both sides of the argument (as you've mentioned you are familiar with evolutionary concepts from your biological studies).


Well, I don't believe I've ridiculed creationism. What I have done is ask some questions about it - perhaps even hard questions. The model is going to have to stand up to some serious scrutiny and study before it can be accepted as a replacement for the current model. Period.

I've acknowledged that your feeling that you have a steep, uphill battle is exactly right. In my way of thinking, it's how it should be -- we wouldn't want to turn science on it's head without a rigourous examination of what we're replacing it with.

I'm sure that scrutiny can be uncomfortable, at times. If the data support it, then it will stand up to that scrutiny. If the data don't support it, then it SHOULD be discredited.

Frankly, I don't understand the whole 'faith' argument at all. I don't understand why it's important to you to assert that evolution is a faith. It's an extraneous argument. Why is it important to you to convince anyone else that evolution is a faith? It really doesn't seem to have anything to do with the empirical argument about how all this got started or what happened next.

I won't hide behind WAT here. I don't believe that evolution is a "faith approaching a religion" because it lacks many of the hallmarks of faith or of religion. Unless you want to classify all of science as faith. I believe atoms exist -- is that faith? Well, I've never seen one so I guess I'm taking someone else's word for it. I believe in physics but I can't always do all the math. Is physics a religion? I don't know how my car works, does that mean I have faith in it? Do I worship my car? Where does the line get drawn? At some point, I think there is a line between 'faith as religion' and 'something you know and don't question a whole lot (like how your car works).'

So, for me, hearing that evolution is my 'religion' is like you telling me I'm worshiping my car. It doesn't make any sense. I don't particularly worry or care if you feel that way -- except that it feels like a veiled insult when you say it and I don't much like that. I wonder if you realize that it comes across that way? Perhaps you don't and there's some hidden point you're trying to make that we're all missing.


Not at all. I don't expect you to have instant answers. Nor do I expect you to digest the knowledge for me. What I would like (not expect, necessarily) is that, for the sake of discussion, you focus a bit more on what you know of the answers rather than arguing with other people about what goes on in their heads (is it a belief, faith, fact, assertion) because that really is an argument that you're never going to win. As long as you're telling someone else what they think the discussion is going to be side tracked into that person (or people) trying to right that injustice. People want to be able to express what they think -- not have it expressed for them especially if it's expressed in a way they feel is not representative of what they truly do think or feel.

I realize it's presumptous of me to ask this of you and I normally don't critique other's posting styles. The reason that I bring it up is not to silence you or upset you or insult you. The reason I bring this up is because I wonder if you truly don't know that you're coming across in that manner and don't intend to. If that's the case, then I want to give you that information so that you might have more success in future discussions (if that's your choice).

Please consider that people would have a much easier time listening to your ideas if they were presented in a way that didn't automatically put them on the defensive (by telling them what they think all ready).


Given the broad range of the topic, I think it makes sense to narrow it down and take it in steps. Trying to do the whole thing at once seems like chaos. I wanted to start before life began at geology and the age of the Earth.


I don't think it's safe to assume the enviroment WAS hostile to life. In fact, I'd suggest the opposite. Not only were the conditions right for life to arise, but they were also right for life to be sustained. It is possible that life started more than once and failed. But, that's just an uninformed opinion. I can look up some references unless someone here has an answer.


No, but it is enough to assert that life started.


I think the problem with the Great Flood model with reference to the fossils on Mt. Everest (if I read the response correctly) was that there were wildly different time scales on tall mountains. Therefore, if the flood occurred all at once, we'd expect to see sea fossils (rock) from that particular era globally and uniformly. Wouldn't we?

The way I understood the response to read was that there were floods -- but they happened locally and in different periods of time.

Did you read something different?


Heh. Life is always more important than a message board. "Happy Birthday" to whomever is celebrating.

Cheers,

Mys

Well, OK, then maybe I am not a standard evolutionist, but I would be interested in seeing any evidence that you might have that tends to prove some aspect of young-Earth creationism.

Notice that I asked for evidence in favor of creationism, not against the theory of evolution.

I think that is much of the problem here. I haven't seen any evidence in favor of creationism. Lots of quotes from authorities, but since they seem to be taken out of context they don't establish much. Even if they were not, they don't go very far to establish the truth of the theory of creationism.

Put it this way - suppose that I decide, for whatever reason, that the theory of evolution thru natural selection is false. However, I do not therefore automatically accept creationism, nor do I assume that either or both of the creation accounts in Genesis are literally true. I don't know where species developed, in other words.

What objective evidence can you suggest that shows that creationism is true? Remember, I do not accept any interpretation of the Bible as a given.

Regards,
rs0522

Yes it makes sense to narrow down the scope a bit, sort of like "how do you eat and elephant. The topic does cover a lot of ground, not just biological. Here's the "salient point" to keep in mind while narrowing the discussion, the KEY point is random chance or a living creator as the CAUSE. If that is not kept in mind you can wind up with the blind men trying to describe the previously mentioned elephant by touching on only the part that happens to be in front of them. I won't recount that one because vitually everyone has already heard that joke at one time or another, but it illustrates the TOTAL needs to be kept in mind as we examining how the "trunk" works and that it does NOT define what an "elephant" is or the functionality of that "trunk" to the whole.



It may be an advantage for "me," personally, but I don't know that translates to any advantage in a discussion with staunch evolutionists.




And that is a good intent. One of the basic traits of "good science" is to question, to examine, to compare, to test the observed against the hypothesis. As was pointed out earlier, the "falsification" of theories is as vital as the "verifiability" of theories. That's one of the major problems and why the idea of "eating the elephant one bite at a time" is the only way we have of trying to decide which Model of Origins (and the subsequent model of evolution as opposed to creationism of "fixed" kinds) is HOW we approach the subject. That examination IS guided in main by the presuppositions that evolution IS right or that creationism is right. The data is then "tested" and compared to what is actually found and a conclusion may be reached regarding which Model more accurately "predicts" what is actually found. The more "manipulation" of the data (including "tossing out" or inventing "explanations for data that would seem to conflict with the underlying presupposition) to conform it to one Model or the other, the less likelihood that the "Model" is correct.



Yes I did miss that. My apology. I was reacting to your post and the "tone" of it, if you will, that you were frustrated that I have not posted more "scientific analysis" regarding biological investigations into evolutionary theory.

While we are touching on that, let me recommend a second book to you that will have bearing on both the biological as well as physical science sides of the evolutionary/naturalistic Model. It is called "The Genesis Flood" by Henry Morris and John Whitcomb. It deals primarily with the issue of Global Catastophism in the Great Flood of Noah (denied by evolutionists) and resultant changes in the physical state of the Earth.


I much prefer the printed word as you indicated you do, so I can, if you wish, provide many references to publications (that most evolutionists would decry as not being one of their "peer reviewed" sources), since most writing in support of creationism is rejected out of hand for publication in said "peer reviewed" publications. If it does not conform to evolutionary thought, it is not considered and often deemed "not science" even though the researchers ARE scientists, many of the Ph.D. level that you requested earlier on.




No, you have not ridiculed creationism as some others have done. Asking "hard questions" is both fine and acceptable. The same, it would seem, would be equally legitimate to ask of evolutionists. That's part of asking "how" life arose to begin with even entertain the idea of biological evolution.




If you "feel" a veiled insult, then you feel insulted. Feelings are personal and I have no control over what anyone feels anymore than they might have control over what I feel. That's emotions "getting in the way of rational thought and the exchange of opposing ideas." I feel equally "insulted" by evolutionist who dismiss "out of hand" creationism, simply because they choose to put their "faith" in random change and physical laws as we know them to be operating in the universe as opposed to putting their faith in a creator who made things, and how they work, by act of will and design and intent. I fully understand that the ONLY people who will basically "believe" in creationism would be those who are part of a "monotheistic" religion that believes in a supreme being. The "opposite" pole, if you will, would be the atheistic evolutionist who denies even the possibility that any "god" might exist and ONLY believes in nature as THE mindless determinant of all that is. "In between" will fall those who are agnostic, theistic evolutionists, etc. who are trying to perhaps accomodate both a creator and evolution.

I suppose we could digress into a discussion of what "faith" is, and how it impacts us and our lives, but then we "off on another tangent." For now, this will probably have to be left to one of those areas where we choose to disagree. But here's something you can think about if you choose to mull over this idea....creationism is based in a faith (belief) that a creator exists. Evolutionism (for atheists) is based in a faith (belief) that no creator exists. Evolutionism (for those who believe in a creator but also what to accomodate evolutionary theory) is based in a faith (belief) that said creator only "kick started" things but had no interest one way or the other if anything developed, much less that mankind developed. You stated: "As long as you're telling someone else what they think the discussion is going to be side tracked into that person (or people) trying to right that injustice. People want to be able to express what they think -- not have it expressed for them especially if it's expressed in a way they feel is not representative of what they truly do think or feel," and I agree. However, stating one of the three "options" I mentioned above when someone claims to be an evolutionist is NOT telling someone else what they think. They have stated that themselves, and repeating it is NOT "thinking for them," it is at that point stating the obvious that they have already stated.

Even if a particular individual has not stated what their own belief is, they will fall into one of the three main "groupings" of thought, or some specialized subset of one of them.




From and evolutionary perspective, this is an assumption, not a fact. Again, we are back to the "presuppositions" that one brings to the "analysis table." But we'll perhaps get into this aspect later, because now we are back to "origins" that the evolutionists don't want to talk about. It's the "elephant" thing again.





Not necessarily. Certainly there IS worldwide distribution of fossils in sedimentary rock, but it is by no means uniformly distributed. That is NOT "unusual" for the Great Flood model anymore than it would be for today and floods that "bury" things as they "drain off."

We can, and probably will, as part of the discussion get into the Great Flood discussion from the standpoint of Universal Catastrophism and it's impact on the world and things living in it.




Thank you. It's my birthday.

rs0522 - Excellent. We'll get to that because I would agree that you are "on track" with what you are looking for.
It will be up to you as to whether or not any such "evidence" is sufficient, or even acceptable, to you.

Myschae and rs0522 - Okay, what follows are some papers that will begin to touch on evidence in favor of creationism. I expect that some may attack the authors, since they ARE creationists, but the data is presented so that you can read it and make comments or questions as you see fit.


February 2004

“VITAL ARTICLES ON SCIENCE/CREATION”

*Dr. Mastropaolo is an adjunct professor of physiology for the ICR Graduate School.
Impact #368

BIOLOGY CONFRONTS EVOLUTION
by Joseph Mastropaolo, Ph.D.*

Evolution pretends to be biology but it plays us for fools because it provides no successful experimental documentation. Let’s see if there is one scintilla of
scientific evidence to support evolution.

Most biology textbooks show a glass apparatus in which the precursors for amino acids were boiled and electrically sparked for a week, and sure enough, there were trace amounts of a few amino acids. The implication is that if
similar, unthinking processes were continued, then a living cell would evolve.

Such logic is like stating that automobiles evolved long ago by means of rubber sap, sand, iron ore, and coal falling into a volcano. The iron ore and the carbon in the coal made steel, the sand melted and made glass, and the sap
vulcanized and made rubber. Then after billions and billions of trials and errors, the text may say, there evolved spontaneously better and better pistons, cylinders, whole engines with spark plugs and transmissions, axles on four wheels with rubber tires under bodies of steel with glass windows, windshield wipers, headlights, and tanks full of gasoline. The text might state that the first cell and all life evolved in a similar way.

Scientists note that such a tall tale is a fantasy of a peculiar type. If someone said he had bought a brand-new car the night before and in the morning found it rusted and rotted to a pile of powder, then we would note that his story described correctly the direction of the laws of physics, but rust and rot do not occur that fast. Contrarily, if he says that a pile of sand and iron
ore evolved into a brand-new car, then we recognize this as an inverted fantasy because it is the exact opposite of the way reality works. So, the amino acid and volcano car examples are not merely fantasies, they are inverted fantasies. They are not the cow-jumped-over-the-moon kind of tall tales, because cows can jump a low fence. They are the grass-ate-the-cow kind of tall tales, the inverted, upside-down kind of fantasy.

One way that scientists reject tall tales is with observation. Scientists are persuaded by observing cars coming off the assembly lines in Detroit and note that no one has ever seen a car spontaneously, nor purposefully, evolved in or out of a volcano. Scientists therefore unequivocally conclude that all cars were created by intelligent design.

But what about life? Is biology sufficient to explain life or must it be supplemented by inverted evolutionary concepts to fully describe the biological world? Let us pursue this answer by examining the life cycle of a
representative life form.


Survival by Means of Genetic Reserves

The monarch butterfly is a good example of biology because all observations can be verified. Its whole life cycle is sequenced from one allotment of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) and can be observed in 60 days. The monarch butterfly’s egg is oval and about one millimeter long. It hatches in three days to a caterpillar which spins a chrysalis around itself then hatches as the butterfly. Then it has the ability to fly, migrate, eat, mate, and procreate. Shortly after completion of their reproductive functions, both male and female become dehydrated and die.


Unique Sequential Genetic Reserves

The life cycle of the monarch butterfly teaches that within the seemingly inert egg are all of the genetic instructions to form a sixteen-legged caterpillar and a sixlegged
butterfly. There was no physical manifestation of the caterpillar when it was an egg just as there was no physical manifestation of the butterfly when it was a
caterpillar. There was a manifested morphology while there were unmanifested in the organism’s genetic reserves meticulously planned transitional structures and
different morphologies. To observe such remarkable transformations in 60 days teaches an important lesson on genetic reserves. These incredibly complex transformations,
which no human engineer can blueprint, may be called sequential genetic reserves. They occur once in a rigorous order to attain adulthood and do not occur again. Every complex organism has them. Some do not transform from sixteen legs to six legs, some do not transform from pedestrians to flyers, but the transformations to adulthood are no less remarkable. Every multicelled life form must grow and develop from an egg or seed to an adult configuration and that requires continuous structural and functional alterations that are molecularly planned, organized, coordinated, controlled, and commanded beyond human comprehension. We do not know how the DNA did it, but we do know that such mega-engineering could not have been done brainlessly the way evolution pretends. There are other kinds of genetic reserves.


Punctual and Precise Cyclical Genetic Reserves

When the arctic fox has a gray coat of fur in summer, which blends with the tundra, it has in its genetic reserve the white fur it will wear in winter. The fox’s white fur in
winter blends with the snow but its genetic reserve still contains the gray fur for the following summer. Similarly, the rock ptarmigan draws from its genetic reserves to
display feathers of mottled reddish-brown in spring, then brownish-gray in fall, then white in winter. Trees leaf and bloom in spring, fruit in summer, then drop their leaves in the fall. Birds nest and rear young in spring and summer, then migrate in the fall. These periodicities are from the organism’s cyclical DNA genetic reserves and go on repetitively for its lifetime with punctuality and precision. The fox has white fur for the first snowfall, not the last, and gray fur for the first thaw, not a
week or a month later. And it never grows red or green or orange or blue fur by trial and error like random processes might propose. If its cyclical genetic reserves were not engineered for precision and punctuality, it could not survive one season.


Punctual and Precise Arousal Genetic Reserves

Exercise in the heat arouses the genetic reserve to synthesize heat-shock proteins that enable activity in the hot environment. Activity patterns arouse new proteins for
muscle actin and myosin contractile filaments. Skeletal muscle hypertrophy and bradycardia are aroused from training, and skeletal muscle atrophy and tachycardia from bed rest. An increased concentration of red blood cells and 2,3-diphosphoglycerate are aroused by sojourns at high altitude, then lost by a return to sea level.
New collateral coronary arteries are synthesized in two months to get around blocked arteries. New bone cells are aroused by fractures, and new scar tissue from abrasions, cuts, or tears. These are but a few of the innumerable DNA genetic reserves manifested by arousal that are built into each life form. They may be aroused in a matter of hours, not millions of years. They cannot be incorporated by
evolution because the organism cannot experience what is needed until the event, and it will not survive unless the need is immediately satisfied. Vacant-minded evolution cannot plan or organize or coordinate or command or control change because it is brainless. What is brainless is simple (to the extreme) and cannot comprehend or act in what is complex to the extreme: life and survival.


All Genetic Reserves Function At Once

From conception to death, the DNA of the life form makes available, as needed, all genetic reserves and there is no interference amongst them. For example, the life form may arouse simultaneously the separate proteins for heat shock and altitude as it climbs a mountain in the heat of the day as well as the proteins to withstand the bitter cold at night. Always at the ready, the abundant genetic reserves may manifest themselves in any appropriate pattern at any time. They provide each life form with remarkable arrays of morphological, functional, and behavioral mechanisms to meet
punctually and precisely the variabilities of any environment and to survive the extremes. And they do it right the first time. They do not do it by magic or blind
iteration over alleged millions of years, as the inverted evolutionist superstition would have us believe. If the arctic fox had to evolve its white coat for the first
snowfall by chance, it would not have survived one day. Like every life form, it needed the versatility, precision, and punctuality of all its genetic reserves from
conception or it would never have survived even to being born.


Are Response, Adaptation, Acclimation, and Acclimatization, Evolution or Design?

If a person exercises, the heart rate will increase and this is called a response. If a person trains for weeks with that exact exercise, then the heart rate will be lower
than the initial response. That lowered heart rate for the same exercise might be called, adaptation. If such a modified response is instigated by an environment, then
it may be called acclimation. If in response to a change in climate, then it may be called acclimatization. Calling any of these evolution misleads us because the immediate response is an attribute of the current physiological configuration from the DNA. From a store of arousal genetic reserves in the DNA, that configuration dynamically masters new requirements and stays current. Those reserves will
synthesize the appropriate new proteins whether the stimulus comes from within, like the exercise, or from outside like the climate, or something else in the environment.

By appropriating the four responses, evolutionists not only mislead us but they also complicate what is in reality quite simple. The design takes care of everything. Evolution has nothing to do and that is why biology has eliminated it.


Are There Speciation, Micro- and Macroevolution in Reality Biology?

Anyone can observe remarkable variation in biology. All brothers and sisters are different. Even identical twins have different fingerprints and behaviors. The Chihuahua is not a different species. “Speciation” and “microevolution” are attempts to appropriate the immense variability of biology. All Chihuahuas are different but not one will ever evolve to a cat or a raccoon or anything else. So too
“macroevolution” as an extension of microevolution is a fraudulent misrepresentation that has never been seen because it is an inverted fantasy like grass eating a
cow.


Life Described Scientifically

As anyone can observe, the Primordial Law of Biology is minor vita ex vita, life arises only from life and always with less vitality. Biology is under the jurisdiction
of the laws of the universe, the propaganda of evolution notwithstanding. The Primordial Law of the Universe is ura semper scalas descendet,nature always
descends, that is, devolves. Therefore, devolution, never evolution, is the relentless, inescapable law of the universe. The true nature of the universe, and therefore
biology, is devolution, the exact opposite of masquerading evolution interloping in public school and university biology textbooks as science.

The history of each individual in each generation is the same as for the population, but on a smaller scale. The individual is conceived with its greatest vitality and
progressively devolves that vitality until death. Just as no individual can live forever, so no population can live forever. All life forms individually and collectively are
fixed and mortal.

From environmental pollutants that cause genetic disorders, populations lose their vitality until they cannot reproduce viable offspring. That is the advent of extinction. By contrast, the evolution superstition in biology textbooks is a multiinverted fantasy because it not only teaches that life can spring up like the volcano car, but that life and the car can perfect themselves forever like fictional perpetual motion machines.


Conclusion

As we have seen, biology is the best explanation of life. It is the most complete, the most observable, and the most verifiable with experiments. There is no need to employ any of the unnecessary, misleading, multi-inverted, and unobservable complexities of evolution superstition. Biology completely eliminates evolution.

Reference
Mastropaolo, Joseph. The Rise and Fall of Evolution, A Scientific Examination.
2003, pp. 115–123. Manuscript in revision.
© 2004 by ICR • All Rights Reserved
Single copies 10¢ • Order from: INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH
P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 • Available for download on our website (www.icr.org).

July 2005

“VITAL ARTICLES ON SCIENCE/CREATION”

*Dr. Daniel Criswell has a Ph.D. in molecular biology and is a biology professor at the ICR Graduate School.

Impact #385 by Daniel Criswell*

In 2001 the complete human genome was published1 with great fanfare and excitement. Many anticipated that the knowledge of the human genetic code (the genome) would provide a complete understanding of what makes a human, well—human. In addition to the human genome, finished and draft genomes for over 25 plants and animals, including the chimpanzee, have now been completed, providing a complete “book of life” for all these organisms.

Unfortunately, only a small portion of each of these books is understood by scientists. From the genomes of these organisms emerged a new scientific field called “genomics.” Genomics is a science that tries to make sense of the mountains of DNA sequence data that is being compiled. The study of the human genome will reveal much about the number and organization of genes and the products of their transcription (proteins). This information will enable scientists to answer a number of questions about heredity (the study of inheritance) and possibly lead to a number of cures for genetic disorders. But what else might the genome tell us about ourselves? Will this provide any new information about human origins and help determine what makes a human distinct from the animal kingdom? Many secular scientists have used this information in a variety of ways to support evolutionary hypotheses about human origins and the origin of all life forms. At ICR, we have also begun to investigate the field of genomics to provide scientific evidence supporting the Biblical position that man was created distinctly different from the animals, and that each “kind” of animal was created distinctly different from other “kinds.”

One area of research currently being conducted at ICR is a comparison of the human and chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) genomes. The Biblical teaching that man was a special creation (Genesis 1:27), different from any other created “kind,” is contrary to the evolutionary paradigm that man evolved from a primitive ape. Following the evolutionary line of reasoning, evolutionists have proposed that the chimpanzee is the nearest relative of modern man—both have evolved from a common hypothetical ancestor. Evolutionists are using certain fossils and the general similarity of man and chimpanzee as proof of their common ancestry. As molecular data (including amino acid sequences in proteins) have accumulated over the past thirty years, this evolutionary link has supposedly been confirmed. Many protein-coding sequences in the genome have been reported to have a 98.5% sequence homology (the percent of DNA that matches between two organisms) for humans and chimpanzees.

However, such sequence similarity was based only on a fraction of the total genome of man and chimpanzees, and reflects only the physiological similarities of humans and chimpanzees based on their cellular protein content, not the overall genomic content. The homology frequently reported for the human/chimpanzee genomes excluded “indels,” which are areas with zero sequence homology. In a recent analysis by Britten et al., inclusion of “indels” in human and chimpanzee sequences reduced the human/chimpanzee homology to 95%.3 However, preliminary research at ICR using genomic databases and the current literature indicates that the sequence homology between humans and chimpanzees may be less than 90%, as more genomic regions, such as heterochromatin (regions of condensed noncoding DNA) and unresolved alignment gaps are included in homology studies.

Major differences between the human and chimpanzee genomes are increasingly being documented in scientific journals. An example of this was reported in an article in Genome Research identifying chromosome rearrangements between human chromosome 21 and the homologous chimpanzee chromosome 22.4 Using many long-range human PCR primers (primers used to sequence 10,000 bases at a time) that spanned 32.4 Mb (1Mb = 1 million bases) of human chromosome 21, approximately 27 Mb of chimpanzee chromosome 22 were successfully sequenced.

This left 5.4 Mb of corresponding human sequences undetectable in chimpanzee chromosome 22. Assuming the 5.4 Mb of DNA that was unable to be sequenced in the chimpanzee genome was 70% homologous to the corresponding human sequence (very generous for sequences that are not alignable!) and combining this with the 27 Mb of sequenced chimpanzee DNA (assuming this region is 95% homologous, see above) would give a homology of 90% for human chromosome 21
and chimpanzee chromosome 22. If the unalignable region is less than 70%, the homology of human chromosome 21 and chimpanzee chromosome 22 will be even less than 90%. Considering all the elements that determine sequence homology, when an entire sequence comparison is finally made between the human and chimpanzee genomes, the actual amount of DNA sequence homology is almost certainly going to be less than 90%.

What is the significance of 98.5% versus 90% homology? If the human and chimpanzee genomes are 10% different, it rules out the possibility that humans and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor. If the difference between the two genomes is 10% then the total number of differences in the DNA sequence would be approximately 300 million nucleotide bases (10% of 3 billion nucleotides present in humans or chimpanzees), meaning that 150 million bases in both the human and chimpanzee have mutated and been fixed in the population since the last common ancestor. If the hypothetical divergence of humans and chimpanzees occurred about 5 million years ago and given that a human generation is about 20 years (and a chimp slightly less), then 250,000 generations have passed from the time humans and chimpanzees diverged from a common ancestor. To get
150 million nucleotide changes in 250,000 generations, the two lines of descent would require 600 beneficial mutations fixed in each population of ancestral humans and chimpanzee per generation. However, nearly all mutations are neutral,
having no effect and therefore are not selectable, or are slightly deleterious, causing genetic deterioration in a population of organisms. A few beneficial mutations have been observed, such as mutations that confer antibiotic resistance in bacteria and sickle cell trait in humans. But even these mutations are deleterious when the individual is returned to optimal conditions for survival and forced
to compete with other individuals lacking the mutation.

Recognizing the high genetic cost of fixing any mutation in a population, J.B.S. Haldane, an evolutionist, determined mathematically that it would take 6 million years to fix just 1,000 beneficial mutations in humans through natural selection.5 If only 1,000 of the mutations are beneficial, then nearly all of the 150 million mutations in the human
lineage would be slightly deleterious or neutral. Deleterious mutations would lead to degeneration of the genome resulting in extinction, and the neutral mutations
would cause no change. This does not lead to some “great leap forward” to a more adapted creature. Because there is no feasible evolutionary solution to this problem, this whole situation has been termed “Haldane’s dilemma.” Even if the difference in homology of humans and chimpanzees is just 98.5% there still would be 250,000 beneficial mutations to be fixed in both populations in the last 5
million years, far too many than are feasible by Haldane’s calculations.

The differences between humans and chimpanzees cannot be determined simply by the amount of sequence homology. The regulation of genes is also an important factor. Differential expression of proteins in humans and chimpanzees has been identified in brain and liver cells. In a comparison of 538 proteins expressed in brain and liver cells in both humans and chimpanzees, 31% of these proteins showed different levels of expression between humans and chimpanzees.6

For comparison, two species of mice, Mus musculus and Mus spretus, also were analyzed for protein
expression differences, but showed just a 7.5% difference in the number of differentially expressed proteins. The larger difference between humans and chimpanzees would support the position that they are two separate “kinds” while the mice, which are classified in the same genus, are likely one “kind.”

The differences in expression were not trivial either, as some of the differentially expressed proteins had more than a 10-fold difference in expression levels between humans and chimpanzees.7 One likely candidate controlling the different levels of proteins in the brain and liver cells are differences in the DNA sequences of the gene promoters in humans and chimpanzees.7 These differences might affect
the binding affinity between DNA and the enzymes necessary for the expression of the gene that encodes the respective protein. Differential expression of proteins is one likely way the Designer specified some of the physical and behavioral differences between humans and chimpanzees.

© 2005 by ICR • All Rights Reserved
Single Copies 10¢ • Order from: INSTITUTE FOR CREATION RESEARCH
P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA 92021 • Available for download on our website (www.icr.org).
Certainly, the real difference between man and animals (including the chimpanzee)
is man’s creation in the image of God, as revealed in the Bible. Man’s relationship
with his Creator affects much of the way he behaves, and ultimately is the
defining characteristic that separates him from the animal kingdom. Genomics
research at ICR should support this fact, showing man to possess genomic characteristics
that could not evolve from another created kind.
This Impact article signals the beginning of genomic studies at ICR. We are
currently working on a number of research projects associated with genomics in
addition to the human/chimpanzee homology study. Some of our proposed projects
will include sequencing mitochondrial DNA with the goals of:
1) Measuring mutation rates in humans.
2) Determining the validity of molecular clocks.
3) Refining the mitochondrial Eve hypothesis showing the relatedness of all humans.
4) Delineating the created kinds.
We will also conduct research using computer models to study the feasibility of evolutionary genetic theory versus the actual emergence of modern populations from a literal Adam and Eve.

References:
1. Venter, J. C., et al., 2001. The sequence of the human genome. Science
291:1304–1351.
2. Genome sequences can be found at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/mapview/
3. Britten, R. J., 2002. Divergence between samples of chimpanzee and human DNA sequences is 5%, counting indels. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science 99(21):13633–13635.
4. Frazer, K. A., et al., 2003. Genomic DNA insertions and deletions occur frequently between humans and nonhuman primates: Genome Research 13:341–346.
5. Haldane, J. B. S., 1957. The cost of natural selection. Journal of Genetics 55:511–524.
6. Enard, W., et al., 2002. Intra- and interspecific variation in primate gene expression patterns. Science 296:340–343.
7. Watanabe, H., et al., 2004. DNA sequence and comparative analysis of chimpanzee chromosome 22. Nature 429:382–388.

I won't comment on the first article until I am sure what it is meant to establish.

In regards to the second -


On what does he base this assumption of a 70% match? He doesn't provide any data to justify such an assumption.

I might suggest choosing the 95% figure more generally accepted. Otherwise, it looks awfully like a "finagle factor" that he pulled out of his sleeve to make his results come out as he wanted.

I am afraid I don't buy this conclusion.

For that matter, if humans were a special creation of God, and have no ancestors in common with the other great apes, why do we share even 90% of their genes? If humans were a completely separate creation, then why aren't their genes also completely separate?

Which I think touches on one of the major drawbacks of creationism. It is unfalsifiable; that is, it does not allow us to make predictions (as a genuine scientific theory ought to do) and it does not cover all the available evidence.

If humans and other primates evolved from a common ancestor, one would expect that we shared a lot of our genetic material with other species in our biological family. And doing the genetic analysis, sure enough, we find even creationists finding that at least 90% of our DNA matches.

If we are special creations, however, there is no explanation of this similarity. We would predict otherwise - that the special creation of man meant that we were almost unique. But, genetically speaking, we aren't - we are much more closely related to other primates that evolutionary theory indicates share with us a common ancestor, and much less closely related to other animals, also allegedly created on the same day as the great apes. Why is that?
In a word, no.
His "finagle factor" is leading him down the primrose path of error.

From here:


This part is simply hogwash. Evolution occurs in a given environmental niche, in a given population.

Antibiotic resistance, for example, evolves because it offers increased survival rates over other, non-mutated organisms in the same niche. That's why antibiotic-resistant microbes increase in frequency over time - because they can out-compete their non-mutated brethren.
This is mere hand-waving. Chimps and humans are different species, as are the two mouse species mentioned.

But again, notice that closely related species share more genes in common than unrelated ones. Just as one would expect if evolutionary theory were correct, and unexplainable if creationism were.

Well, at least he announces that he intends his research to support his theory, and that he won't follow the facts if they start to contradict it.

But again, none of this supports creationism.

Suppose that this stuff were valid (a stretch, I realize). And suppose that it proved something - that humans didn't evolve from a common ancestor with other great apes.

How do we know that, therefore, God created man? What evidence is there in favor of that theory?

Regards,
rs0522

Okay, now you are back to the "origins of life" question that I have been "beat up" for asking about with respect to LIFE by several evolutionists.

However, I do have an answer for that question, if you really want it. The answer is quite simple, actually. Jesus Christ. HE created everything, including life.

OK, then what scientifically verifiable evidence do you have that God created the earth in six literal days about 10,000 years ago?

Maybe you could show how the similarity between apes and humans is explicable under creationist theory. Or something.

So far, we haven't seen any evidence for your theory. The two long posts you have already provided haven't proven creationism at all - far from it, even if they were logical.

It is not true that if you don't accept evolution you have to believe in creationism.

I wanted to say that creationism and the theory of the evolution of species thru natural selection are both theories, but they are not. Evolutionary theory is a scientific theory; creationism is dogma. There is considerable evidence in favor of evolution; there is none in favor of creationism.

Which is why, I suspect, that creationists generally change the subject when the notion of evidence in favor of their idea comes up.

So again, what have you got?

Regards,
rs0522

Well, I guess that depends upon who you wish to accept as a reliable witness to the event. In essence, then the "verifiable evidence" of the sort you seem to be looking for is Jesus Christ himself. Not only was he there as the eternal Word, it was through him and by him that everything was created. Furthermore, he lived in human form in the person of Jesus, and "verified" that God created. Now, if one wishes to refuse Jesus, that is their prerogative, but if one accepts Jesus as their Lord and Savior, WHO would be a "better, more reliable" source? The musings of Man?

In any event, you are back to Origins as being part of evolution of biological organisms, and I'm not so sure I want to "endure the wrath" of folks like WAT and 2long by entertaining that discussion.




Let me get this straight. You want me to provide ONE article, post, message, whatever, that PROVES creationism?

How about giving me ONE that PROVES evolution?

Neither is "proveable" in the "scientific method" sense, and you should know that. So why the taunting? Why the impatience? What is it about a Molecular Biologist who happens to believe in creation is "less a scientist" than a Molecular Biologist who believes in evolution? What is it that years of research spoken about in the article is "not good enough science" for you? That it supports the predictions of the Creation Model?

For the record, I already gave that ONE proof. It IS Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the eternal Word, the "second" person of the Trinity, who WAS present at the beginning and who DID the creating. So if you want to "begin" somewhere in the "quest for truth," how about beginning with Jesus. Either he IS who said he is, or he isn't. If he is, then HE knows and HE tells us "how it was."




Okay. So what is your alternative, or alternatives, to evolution then?

Hi FH,

Thanks for the reply. About your Qs:

"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" was a catchy phrase that Ernst Haeckel, a prominent German biologist in the 1860-80s, came up with. He meant by it that he had observed that the stages in the development of a vertebrate embryo seemed to successively show ancestral characteristics of that particular species.
Further studies did not show that this affect is consistent in all species of vertebrates. It does occur in some species - there are many cases of this affect, which is known as 'recapitulation'.



I assume that you mean speciation - the process by which a new species develops. I did a search for you in a major biological database (BIOSIS) and came up with 16,625 recent references to papers about speciation in specialist biological journals. Its hard to show just one example. If you have access to a good library, you can do this.



Yes. One example is mitochondria and chloroplasts, which as you may know, are organelles that exist inside cells and perform vital functions. Both of these have their own DNA which is different to the DNA of the host organism, and has a lot more in common with certain groups of bacteria. This seems to indicate that they have arisen originally from a symbiosis - they were once free-living bacterial species, and now they are a vital part of an animal or plant cell.

Just last year, a paper was published in Nature which showed evidence of such a symbiosis happening in real time, including genetic exchange between the host and the symbiont - ie the change of a bacterial symbiont into a chloroplast, an organelle inside a cell.

You are probably also aware of the detailed dataset showing the evolution of the HIV virus since we first recognised it in the 1970s. We have kept great records and can trace back the 'tree' of the mutations in this organism - it is now completely different genetically to its original state.



Again, I assume by Kind that you mean species.
Yes, there are many studies of speciation. Understand that a 'species' is a fairly loose term in biology. I have found several new species, and it is an interesting process, because there is a lot of judgement involved about whether or not something is a species. For example, two populations are 5% different in one region of DNA, is that enough to be separate species, or should they be considered the same species? What about 2%? Or 10%? In fact, there is no standard. What we often observe in nature is a continuum of differences... organisms that differ genetically from one another in small increments. If it is only slightly, we consider them separate populations. If it is a little more, we might consider them 'sub-species'.. and so on... but another specialist biologist might judge it differently.
At some level of difference, sexually reproducing species may not be able to produce viable offspring... but this is usually not tested, as often they have no contact if they are found in different places. Also, sexual reproduction does not occur at all in around 30-40% of the biological world.

Hope this helps clarify.
All the best