SCIENCE HAS DEGENERATED DUE TO EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Posted on by

For almost a century, the field of evolutionary biology has been dominated by the neo-Darwinian research program. The primary hypothesis of this program holds that all species have originated through natural processes by descent with modification from only one common ancestor. On the other hand, the creation science framework postulates independent origins (‘creation’) of baramins with built-in flexible genomes (coined ‘baranomes’) to vary, adapt, and speciate. From the start, baranomes contained a limited number of VIGEs—including ERVs and LINEs. In distinct baranomes, VIGEs may have been located on the exact same position in the DNA (the T-zero position), which then explains why some VIGEs can be found in the same location in genomes of modern organisms independent of the assumption of common descent, for instance in great apes and humans.

New studies reveal a high level of complexity of DNA

The functionality of LINEs is very important to discern between the neo- Darwinian and the creation science framework. If LINEs were without function, and if they were integrated randomly in genomes, common ancestry of the neo-Darwinian framework would be strongly supported. If, on the other hand, LINEs, as shown to be the case, are functional and their genomic integration is strongly regulated and controlled, the argument for common ancestry is nonexistent. The presence of the same VIGEs on the same location in the genomes of distinct species would then boil down to merely an argument of ‘nested hierarchy’, i.e. groups within groups within groups. These groups are based on suites of similar traits, and it is a different way of presenting evolutionary ‘tree thinking’.

The evolutionary explanation for the multitude of ERVs and LINEs present in genomes is that they are supposed to be the remnants of retroviruses that invaded the genomes millions of years ago. Italian brain researchers (1 &2) now provide further evidence that LINEs operate in genomes as VIGEs. That they originated in a distant past as viruses is merely belief, not science.

That we find LINEs with the exact same function in both vertebrates and mollusks is a strong argument that shared retrotransposons, even if they are present in the exact same location in the DNA, do not necessarily imply common ancestry. Rather, their functional presence argues for a front-loaded modular design system to induce controlled and regulated variation. Such mechanisms, which are increasingly identified in the genomes of organisms, witness to the greatness of the Creator, who foreknew the Fall of man and of the worldwide Flood. In His immeasurable goodness, He designed His creatures in such a way that they could rapidly adapt to entirely novel environments and fill every corner and crevice of the earth.

When it is obvious that intelligent design is the only explanation for the existence of this universe then the belief it came into existence by random chance is absurd and only leads to poor science.

1. Terborg, P., The design of life: part 4—variation inducing genetic elements and their functions, J. Creation 23 (1):107–114, 2009.

2. Terborg, P., The ‘VIGE-first hypothesis’—how easy it is to swap cause and effect, J. Creation 27(3):105–112, 2013.

COMPLEXITY OF THE GENOME

Posted on by

Although evolutionary theory says all creatures descended from a common ancestor, when one looks at animals today (or in the fossil record), they appear to be unique creations with the ability to change to fit their environments. 

A creature’s ability to live and change is programmed at the deepest levels of the genome in ways we do not fully understand. It is inconceivable that it could have evolved by random chance.

What we can now see with an electron microscope is that the human genome works as a four-dimensional ‘computer’: our three billion letter sequence of DNA is able to turn sections of itself on and off; it is coiled into 3D fractal spheres where sections folded near each other combine to create new levels of information; it changes shape over time to expose different areas of DNA needed to create tens of thousands of different proteins.

This level of complexity is not just limited to the genome, but can be seen in the interdependent relationships between living creatures throughout every ecosystem. Such highly-engineered structures and relationships can only exist if they are created simultaneously in a short space of time — which is exactly how Genesis says God created in six normal days.

MAIN PROBLEM WITH THE GENERAL THEORY OF EVOLUTION

Posted on by

The main scientific objection to the General Theory of Evolution (the theory that all the living forms in the world have arisen from a single source which itself came from an inorganic form) is not that changes occur through time, and neither is it about the size of the change. The key issue is the type of change required — to change microbes into men requires changes that increase the genetic information content, from over half a million DNA ‘letters’ of even the ‘simplest’ self-reproducing organism to three billion ‘letters’ (stored in each human cell nucleus).

Nothing in evolutionary literature provides a single example of functional new information being added.

To claim that mere change proves information-increasing change can occur is like saying that because a merchant sells goods, he can sell them for a profit. The origin of information is a major problem for the GTE — see the CMI article Information: A modern scientific design argument.

Information requires an intelligent source and is ample proof for the existence of our Creator God who has made Himself known, ultimately through God, the Son, coming to earth to redeem us, to restore us back into a right relationship with our Heavenly Father, our Creator.

Information: A modern scientific design argument

ORIGIN OF FIRST SELF-REPRODUCING CELL?

Posted on by

A huge problem for naturalistic evolution is how life with its complex coded information could have arisen spontaneously in evolution’s very first living cell. I would suggest it is adequate proof for an Intelligent Designer and a good reason to take a look at the Bible’s account of Creation in Genesis. We learn God created a perfect world and humans made in the image of their Creator. Man’s SIN is the reason for death and suffering in this world. The Good News is that our loving Creator has provided the solution to restore our relationship with Him and overcome death. Jesus is His name.

Image result for picture of dna replication

Extract from editorial in Creation Magazine Vol 30 No.4 2017.

We have previously written about how scientists have attempted to determine the simplest self-reproducing cell (see creation.com/simple). This hypothetical cell was said to require a minimum of 256 genes. The problem for
evolutionists is that they cannot appeal to natural selection to explain the first cell. That’s because natural selection requires a living, reproducing cell to pass on any trait selected for! Further research in 2006 increased this figure to 387 protein-coding and 43 RNA-coding genes.
In 2016, the minimalist genome was once again increased with the creation of a synthetic self-reproducing bacterium: this time, to 473 genes (531,560 ‘letters’), including 65 whose function are unknown but which were essential for the survival of the cell. This is not much less than Mycoplasma genitalium (482 genes, 582,970 letters)—which itself is a parasite of even more complex organisms.

How then can evolutionists explain the origin of the very first self-reproducing cell? It is a mathematical impossibility for just one gene to have arisen by chance—much less 473.

The Bible says in John 1:1, “In the beginning was the WORD” and of course we now  know that every living thing has at its nucleus, DNA, a word of thousands of letters controlling all the functions of each cell. What follows in John 1:1  “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Research highlights, Nature 439(7074):246–247, January 2006 | doi:10.1038/439246a.
Glass, J.I. et al., Essential genes of a minimal bacterium, Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103(2):425– 430, January 2006 | doi:10.1073/pnas.0510013103.
Hesman, T., Scientists build minimum genome bacterium, sciencenews.org, March 2016.

SCIENTISTS BUILD DNA FROM SCRATCH TO ALTER LIFE’S BLUEPRINT

Posted on by

Scientists have long been able to make specific changes in the DNA code. Now, they’re taking the more radical step of starting over, and building redesigned life forms from scratch. Boeke, a researcher at New York University, directs an international team of 11 labs on four continents working to “rewrite” the yeast genome, following a detailed plan they published in March.

I wonder how God views man’s efforts to be the Creator. Is this another “end time” indicator?

Scientists build DNA from scratch to alter life's blueprintNYU School of Medicine Professor Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Pharmacology Jef D. Boeke speaks during an interview in his office at the Alexandria Centre for Life Sciences in New York.
Their work is part of a bold and controversial pursuit aimed at creating custom-made DNA codes to be inserted into living cells to change how they function, or even provide a treatment for diseases. It could also someday help give scientists the profound and unsettling ability to create entirely new organisms.

The genome is the entire genetic code of a living thing. Learning how to make one from scratch, Boeke said, means “you really can construct something that’s completely new.”

The research may reveal basic, hidden rules that govern the structure and functioning of genomes. But it also opens the door to life with new and useful characteristics, like microbes or mammal cells that are better than current ones at pumping out medications in pharmaceutical factories, or new vaccines. The right modifications might make yeast efficiently produce new biofuels, Boeke says.

Also on the horizon is redesigning human DNA. That’s not to make genetically altered people, scientists stress. Instead, the synthetic DNA would be put into cells, to make them better at pumping out pharmaceutical proteins, for example, or perhaps to engineer stem cells as a safer source of lab-grown tissue and organs for transplanting into patients.

Some have found the idea of remaking human DNA disconcerting, and scientists plan to get guidance from ethicists and the public before they try it.

Still, redesigning DNA is alarming to some. Laurie Zoloth of Northwestern University, a bioethicist who’s been following the effort, is concerned about making organisms with “properties we cannot fully know.” And the work would disturb people who believe creating life from scratch would give humans unwarranted power, she said.

“It is not only a science project,” Zoloth said in an email. “It is an ethical and moral and theological proposal of significant proportions.”

Rewritten DNA has already been put to work in viruses and bacteria. Australian scientists recently announced that they’d built the genome of the Zika virus in a lab, for example, to better understand it and get clues for new treatments.

At Harvard University, Jeffrey Way and Pamela Silver are working toward developing a harmless strain of salmonella to use as a vaccine against food poisoning from salmonella and E. coli, as well as the diarrhea-causing disease called shigella.

A key goal is to prevent the strain from turning harmful as a result of picking up DNA from other bacteria. That requires changing its genome in 30,000 places.

“The only practical way to do that,” Way says, “is to synthesize it from scratch.”

The cutting edge for redesigning a genome, though, is yeast. Its genome is bigger and more complex than the viral and bacterial codes altered so far. But it’s well-understood and yeast will readily swap man-made DNA for its own.

 

Last year, Boeke and others announced a separate effort, what is now called Genome Project-write or GP-write . It is chiefly focused on cutting the cost of building and testing large genomes, including human ones, by more than 1,000-fold within 10 years. The project is still seeking funding.

In the meantime, leaders of GP-write have started discussions of ethical, legal and social issues. And they realize the idea of making a human genome is a sensitive one.

“The notion that we could actually write a human genome is simultaneously thrilling to some and not so thrilling to others,” Boeke said. “So we recognize this is going to take a lot of discussion.”

 

WHAT IS THE MOST COMPLEX COMPUTER OPERATING SYSTEM IN THE KNOWN UNIVERSE?

Posted on by

The human genome is the most complex computer operating system anywhere in the known universe.

It controls a super-complex biochemistry that acts with single-molecule precision. It controls the interaction network of hundreds of thousands of proteins. It is a wonderful testament to the creative brilliance of God and an excellent example of the scientific bankruptcy of neo-Darwinian theory. Why? Because the more complex life is, the less tenable evolutionary theory becomes. Super-complex machines cannot be tinkered with haphazardly or they will break. And super-complex machines do not arise from random changes.

The four dimensional human genome defies naturalistic explanations.

Our computer programs are essentially one-dimensional. The human genome operates in four dimensions. This is one of the greatest testimonies to the creative brilliance of God available.

ecoli-bacterium-lge

Figure 1: A comparison of the control of transcription in E. Coli (left) with the Linux call graph (right). The bacterial cell is able to control many protein-coding genes (green lines at bottom) with relatively few controls (yellow and purple lines). Linux, while obviously a result of intelligent design, falls far short in that it requires many more high-level instructions to control relatively few outputs. From Yan et al. 2010.1

I am serious when I compare the genome to a computer operating system. The only problem with this analogy is that we have no computers that can compare to the genome in terms of complexity or efficiency. It is only on the most base level that the analogy works, but that is what makes the comparison so powerful. After millions of hours of writing and debugging we have only managed to create operating systems that can run a laptop or a server, and they crash, a lot. The genome, though, runs a hyper-complex machine called the human body. The organisation of the two are radically different as well. A team made up of computer scientists, biophysicists, and experts in bioinformatics (in other words, really smart people) compared the genome of the lowly E. coli bacterium to the Linux operating system (figure 1) and have discovered that our man-made operating systems are much less efficient because they are much more “top heavy”.1 It turns out that the bacterial genome has a few high-level instructions that control a few middle-level processes, that in turn control a massive number of protein-coding genes. Linux is the opposite. It is much more top heavy and thus much less efficient at getting things done. The bacterium can do a lot more with fewer controls. I predict that the study of genomics will influence the future development of computers.

This is very brief summary of the information contained in the DVD by Dr Robert Carter  The High Tech Cell. You need to get this valuable resource and I suggest you purchase a copy from the Creation Ministries webstore.

DEFEND THE BIBLE – GO ON THE OFFENSIVE

Posted on by

Looking for Answers pic

There is now so much evidence which proves the Bible is trustworthy that Christians properly equipped can go on the offensive rather than go on the defensive as so many do when challenged as to the veracity of Scripture’s claims.

The many fulfilled Bible prophesies, such as Isaiah’s prophesy that a Persian king would arise with the name Cyrus – around 150 years before the event occurred. Three hundred prophesies in the Old Testament (OT) of the birth, life, death and resurrection of Jesus that all occurred exactly as prophesied.

In the field of archaeology, the Bible has been confirmed accurate by numerous archaeological discoveries. The Hittites were presumed to be a mythical tribe because no physical evidence had been found. That was until a huge ‘City of the Hittites was uncovered.  The discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls as late as 1947 with an almost complete copy of Isaiah in which there are so many of the prophesies of Jesus life, death by crucifixion and resurrection. As a result, the Bible is regarded as “the most accurate history book in the world”(The Archaeology of the New Testament by E.M.Blaiklock). Considering this fact alone, one can logically assume that its other historical claims in Genesis such as a real Adam and Eve and a global Flood are also true.

In the New Testament (NT), scholars used to be skeptical about John’s description of the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem, but archaeology showed that John’s description was accurate (which also proved that the gospel of John was authored by someone who had been in Jerusalem before the AD 70 destruction, which fits very well with the Apostle John being the author). John and all the NT authors – and even Jesus himself – believed and quoted from Genesis more than any other book in the Bible.

It is in the area of Genesis Creation where the rubber really hits the road, and where Creation Ministries has truly shone with evidence that recent discoveries particularly on DNA (Information Theory) and the function of cells have demonstrated the futility of evolution with its proposed mechanisms of natural selection and mutation. On their website http://www.creation.com there are almost 8,500 fully searchable articles you can access to equip you with answers to provide real seekers of the truth about God and Creation.

The Bible is trustworthy, including its claims about sin and salvation. Jesus is who he said He is. He is the way, the truth and the life. Jesus believed Genesis was true history then I suggest so should we.

MARRIAGE – becoming one flesh

Posted on by

Man + Woman God's Way

Sexual intimacy and bearing children result in becoming ‘one flesh’ through shared DNA

“For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother, and be joined to his wife; and they shall become one flesh. ”   Genesis 2:24

There is now good evidence to suggest that the immune tolerance generated in the woman by un-protected sex with her husband results in successful and complication-free pregnancy outcomes. This out-come has been linked not to coitus alone but to sperm exposure. The presence of sperm in the woman’s body  provides priming events for exposure to the female T cell lymphocytes resulting  in maternal immune tolerance to the paternal antigens. These T cell lymphocytes, thus reprogrammed, recognize the paternal antigens in the conceptus and facilitate implantation rather than attack the ‘foreign’ cells.

There is burgeoning medical literature demonstrating that a lack of immune tolerance has been linked with severe complications, including risk of miscarriage, preterm labour, pre-eclampsia, preterm rupture of membranes (mother’s water breaking prematurely), placenta abruption, intrauterine growth restriction ( a baby will not achieve normal weight and size), and HELLP syndrome (haemolysis, elevated liver enzymes , and low platelets – a devastating disease described as a worse form of eclampsia). The significance of maternal immune intolerance is further illustrated by the higher risk of pre-eclampsia and miscarriage in pregnancies from in-vitro fertilization, or IVF.

It is not by accident that behaviours stated in Scripture to be sinful, such as adultery and fornication, are also unhealthy. many women know that their regular pap smears are designed to detect early changes in the cervical cells that may lead to cancer. But many ar e unaware that this disease is caused by a sexually transmitted virus called the human papilloma virus (HPV). Condoms do not protect against infection by this family of viruses. Notably where sexual partners commence a relationship while virgins, and remain together for life in an exclusive relationship, the woman;s risk of acquiring HPV and subsequently, cervical cancer is exceedingly low. The Oxford Textbook of Pathology states in this regard, that women are at higher risk of cervical cancer by: • having multiple partners • having a partner who has had multiple sexual partners • having sex at a young age.

The God who made us, and loves us, knows what is best for us, and He has provided us with His rule book – The Bible.

Extract from article, Becoming One Flesh by Dr Kathy Wallace, BA, BHSc Hons, BM BS, FRACGP             For complete article go to http://www.creation.com

 

A GOOD GOD & A WORLD OF DEATH & SUFFERING?

Posted on by

lambs

One of the most common questions asked of Christians is some version of: “If God is so loving, why are there bad things in the world?” The implication being that if God created this world in the state it is in, He can’t be ‘very good’ Himself. This is sometimes used as a reason to reject belief in God.

If God created everything in 6 days when exactly were ‘bad things’ created?

The first thing we need to understand is that God wasn’t surprised by the Fall of Adam. God is all knowing and so knew that a punishment would have to be meted out following Adam’s (and his offspring’s) rebellion.

According to Scripture, at the time of the Fall the environment changed and there were changes in the physical construction of some things as well. For example thorns appeared where there were none before. Some might ask ‘Doesn’t that mean God must have created new genetic information for these things at that time where there was none before?’ Not necessarily, because ‘hidden’ genetic information can lie dormant within living things and be activated under certain environmental conditions.

For example up to the 1920’s, scientists used to classify grasshoppers as a separate species to locusts. However, researchers have since determined that they are actually the same creature. Under certain (laboratory reproducible) circumstances they exhibit a sort of Jekyll/Hyde transformation that is truly startling!

Behavioural differences happen immediately at the transformation, with physical changes appearing in subsequent generations. The difference in behaviour (grasshoppers are solitary, locusts swarm), and morphology (locusts have smaller legs, wings and bodies but have a 30% larger brain than grasshoppers) is significant and changes neural, muscular and exo-skeletal expression. And the transformation from grasshopper to locust can also be reversed back again. Yet the DNA of the two creatures is identical.7

This ability for DNA to express different programming from the same source code under different environmental conditions is actually fairly common. The epigenetic code, a set of switches that turn genes on and off (e.g. in response to environmental stimuli) is a main contributor to this ability of the ‘finished product’ to vary despite the same DNA ‘instructions. This is known as ‘phenotypic plasticity’.

Not only is the discovery of latent genetic information an incredible challenge for evolution to account for, and a tremendous evidence of design (because it exhibits all of the characteristics of foresight and pre-planning in the genomes of creatures around the world), but it also helps answer the supposedly unanswerable question of how ‘bad things’ appeared after the Fall if God’s creation was completely finished by the end of the sixth day of creation.

God’s word is true

Foreknowing the Fall of man,9 God created the features of a post-Fall world in latent form within His very good world. They only became activated when God cursed the creation as punishment for Adam’s transgression. And the entire creation groans because of that Curse and is evidence that something is desperately wrong with this world. If God had not caused our physical environment to change at the time of the Fall, we would be lost without Him, bound for Hell but still in a virtual paradise. How would we know there was anything wrong and that we were in need of our Saviour

extract from article “The good, the bad and the ugly ….” by Calvin Smith on http://www.creation.com

 

Awesome Creator says Dr Yusdi Santoso

Posted on by

10396472-computer-artwork-showing-a-hand-and-double-stranded-dna-deoxyribonucleic-acid-molecules-dna-is-compo[1]

Dr Yusdi Santoso an Oxford PhD scientist whose research on DNA polymerase led to the discovery that, prior to proof reading, there is an additional process that screens the DNA letters before they are incorporated into the copy. Since defective screening leads to copying errors Dr Yusdi’s work may contribute to curing genetic diseases arising from inefficiencies in this process.

Only those people who have already decided to reject God, reject it is a miracle of design by an awesome designer outside the Matter/Space/Time Universe He created says, Dr Yusdi Santoso.

It is interesting that Francis Crick evolutionist, one of the discoverers of the structure of DNA and author of Life Itself: Its Origin & Nature admitted, “an honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle, so many conditions which would have to be satisfied to get it going”.

Can I recommend you take a look at the complete article “Oxford trained scientist acknowledges the Creator” in Creation magazine Vol. 36, No. 3 2014. Dominic Statham interviews biophysicist Dr Yusdi Santoso. It concludes with – Dr Santoso is adamant that the reality of God can be seen in creation: “The Bible tells us we are fearfully and wonderfully made (Psalm 134:19) and I saw this clearly in much of my scientific work. My research into DNA polymerase, particularly, showed me just how complex life is. All this speaks of an awesome Creator.