"MAN DID NOT EVOLVE FROM APES!"
The article I comment on follows after my comments........
It is obvious that microevolution occurs as evidenced in the creation of
antibiotic resistant pathogens from the over use of antibiotics in the health care industry.
However....assuming the same process occurs at the macro level is a "quantum stretch in reality"
because the new genetic codes necessary for the evolution of major plant and
animal phyla is enormous and because 99% of new codes in DNA mutations, the ONLY source of natural new codes, are
"lethal" and less than 1% of any possible positive mutations occur in
germ tissue, the only ones passed on for natural selection to act on, there
simply was no where near enough time on this planet for macroevolution to
produce all "codes" necessary for the creation of the major phyla of plants and animals. The ONLY other possible
explanation for the phylogenetic diversity of life on this planet including the
creation of man is by "Intelligent Design."
Creationist Fundamental Christianity has "Intelligent Design" correct as the mechanism of the creation of the vast diversity of life on the planet but because they do
not "know" the God revealed in the "flesh" in the
Incarnation of Yeshua ben Joseph (Jesus the Christ) they have embraced an
illusionary mechanism for "Intelligent Design" which man calls the
"supernatural." God is PERFECT therefore His Laws are PERFECT and the
man created concept of the "supernatural" would imply a violation or
suspension of those laws...a non-sequitur.
Ironically, Science has discovered the PERFECT Laws of the creation of the
great diversity of life but because they reject the true God and His word in
the Bible...they do not realize that the diversity of life on this planet was
created by God by "Intelligent Design" via Recombinant DNA and
"gene editing." (CRISPR....Clustered regularly-interspaced short
palindromic repeats)
Sadly, because Creationists fear that Science is incompatible with God's
WORD...they embrace the illogic of the "supernatural" which has
unfortunately caused many to reject the Truth that the Bible is the inerrant
Word of God and is verified by Scientific discovery and therefore, Creationists
also do not realize Science has discovered "how God created" the
various plant and animal phyla on Earth.
The "key" to understanding the True God revealed by Jesus Christ and
the "true mechanism of Intelligent Design" is found in the following
Scriptures that reveal that God dwells within and works through His Creation
and His PERFECT Laws....... Genesis1:26, Psalm 82:3-6, John 14:8-23, Galatians
3:26-28, Colossians 1:27, 2:9-10, 1 Corinthians:3:16-17, 1 Corinthians 6:19-20,
1 John 4:11-16......study these Scriptures in a spirit of humility and prayer.
In Christ.....David Brown
Additional note to previous post........It's not that the
Bible is "fantasy" as many scientists believe ..it's the
"fundamental interpretation" of it by Creationists that
causes the confusion AND illusions.
New Evidence Leaves Macroevolution Dangling
BY ARTHUR CHADWICK and LEONARD BRAND
As scientists who accept the literal intent of the Genesis account of
origins, we have faced many challenges to our faith during our undergraduate and
graduate education, and later on as professional scientists. Sometimes these
challenges left us shaken, puzzled, or otherwise uncertain about what to do
with some particular piece of information. Often we were driven back to our
knees and to God’s Word for reassurance that we were moving in the right
direction. Always we were directed to analyze more carefully the data from
which the challenge had been derived.
One of the major challenges has been the question of macroevolution. The
theory of macroevolution asserts that the first living cells, and all types of
life, are the result of nondirected, naturalistic processes without the
intervention of an outside agency (God). This theory became dominant in the
nineteenth century, when scientists knew nothing about the complexity of living
cells. It might have been easy to believe a cell could have arisen
spontaneously when it was viewed as little more than a fluid-filled sac.
Enter DNA
As we learned more of cellular complexity, including DNA, in the
twentieth century, naturalistic scientists had no choice but to believe that
this amazing system of molecules that undergirds all life originated by
accident. What other theory was there? Certainly they could not accept the idea
of a Creator, since their naturalistic assumptions prohibited this possibility.
Now in the twenty-first century, three crucial discoveries have undermined the
foundation on which the evolutionary origin of life forms seemed to be resting.
Discovery 1: The
Human Genome Project
T
he Two Percent. In 1990 the Human Genome Project began as a
massively funded effort by a large contingent of scientists to determine the
entire information sequence of human DNA. Scientists discovered, much to their
perplexity, that only a tiny fraction (about 2 percent, about 20,000 genes) of
human DNA coded for proteins (contained instructions for making a specific
protein), yet it was known that nearly 100,000 different proteins were made in
human cells. That discrepancy demanded an explanation, and the explanation was
stunning. It turned out that those portions of DNA that coded for an amino acid
sequence in a protein (exons) could be combined in various ways to make
different proteins. This explained how only 2 percent of our DNA could make so
many proteins.
It became evident that there would have to be another level of control to
determine which exons to stitch together, in which order to make the
appropriate protein. Then there would have to be an additional level of control
to regulate that, and so on. This multilevel DNA management system was
completely beyond anything that had previously been visualized for the
complexity of the genetic system.
The Ninety-eight Percent. What was the other 98 percent of the DNA
doing? Evolutionary biologists had long ago decided the DNA that was not coding
directly for proteins must be “Junk DNA.” This nonfunctional DNA, they
declared, was being modified by random mutations to produce new genes that,
when functional, would become part of the organism’s genome. By this process,
over time, an amphibian could become a reptile, a reptile could become a
mammal, and a mammal could become a human. In fact, “Junk DNA” quickly became a
strong argument for evolution among biologists.
But trouble was on the way. A new massive, federally funded initiative,
called the ENCODE project, was launched to find out what the 98 percent of the
DNA that was not coding for proteins was doing. In September 2012 the project
simultaneously published a series of papers on the results of their work.1
The consortium announced that at least 80 percent, and probably a lot more of
the human DNA that had been thought of as “junk,” was functional DNA. It is not
only functional, but also critically important.
Much of this 98 percent of the DNA that did not code directly for
proteins was regulating the protein production system; it was part of the
multifunctional control of the genetic system. Evolutionists were quick to
condemn the report, in spite of the fact that more than 400 of the top molecular
biologists in the world had been working on the project. But the results have
held up scientifically and are now widely accepted.
The protein-coding genes, 2 percent of the DNA,2 are very
similar in all animals. We share 70 percent of our protein coding genes (70
percent of 2 percent) with an acorn worm, 92 percent with a mouse, and up to 96
percent with a chimpanzee. The rest of the DNA (98 percent), clearly, is what
makes a human different from an acorn worm, a mouse, or a chimpanzee. This was
a huge blow to the theory of evolution, but was long ago predicted by
creationists, who recognized that a designer was not likely to burden the cell
with junk.
Imagine you go into a well-organized machine shop and observe how it
functions. It has hundreds or thousands of drawers along the walls. In each
drawer are tools or parts necessary for construction of anything that a machine
shop can make. One drawer might have a particular size of drill bit; other
drawers may contain specific sizes of machine bolts or washers or nuts. Each
drawer has something unique but essential for the construction of a product.
Not all products will require the use of all drawers.
These drawers represent the protein coding genes. They are important,
even essential, but they cannot produce a thing without the machinist and the
blueprint. When the machinist is given a blueprint, he gathers the necessary
parts, turns on the needed machines, and, with the skill borne of experience
and years, creates the required product. Without the machinist and the
blueprint, the machine shop could not produce anything, ever. The machinist and
the blueprint represent the regulatory DNA that makes up the majority of the
genome. Evolution has no evidence to explain how that genetic system
originated. But that’s just the beginning of problems for naturalistic
explanations; there is more.
Discovery 2:
Epigenetics
Until a few years ago, biology dogma was that genes controlled
everything, and that it was genes that determine who one is and what one could
become. Now that has changed. For generations students of science have been
indoctrinated to believe inheritance from outside of DNA (also known as
Lamarckism) would be an absurdity: an example would be a giraffe acquiring a
long neck because its ancestors kept reaching for higher leaves in the trees.
However, beginning about two decades ago, scientists began to recognize another
level of control that turned portions of DNA on or off, without changing the
information in the DNA.
These epigenetic modifications, from outside
of DNA, affected an animal’s anatomy, function, and even behavior.
3
In 2014, scientists studying behavior in mice were able to show convincingly
that when a mouse learned an aversion to a specific pleasant odor (animals were
shocked when the odor was presented), this aversion could be passed on through
three or four generations of offspring. The title of the editorial comments in
the scientific journal
Nature voices the thought that will occur to any
Bible reader: “Epigenetics: The Sins of the Fathers.”
4
In the example of the mice and in other epigenetic effects the hereditary
outcome is not the result of any mutations or other change in the DNA. The
epigenetic chemical changes are passed to future offspring as long as they are
needed, and the changes may be reversed in future generations. For example, a
parent’s diet, behavior, or stress level during pregnancy can affect their
offspring without any DNA mutations, and these changes can be passed on to
subsequent generations.
Epigenetics presents a dramatic challenge to evolution. Evolution
requires all new genetic information to arise by random changes. Without a
Creator, the genetic process cannot know in advance what the animal will need.
But epigenetics allows the environment to induce changes that will be
beneficial, without the help of natural selection. What kinds of control
mechanisms and design are involved in developing a system so sophisticated that
it can pass on behavioral information that persists, without a change in genes?
This is a serious difficulty for evolutionary theory as it has been taught for
100 years. But there were more challenges to come for evolution.
Discovery 3: Orphan
Genes
Orphan gene” was coined to designate protein-coding regions (that is,
genes) in an animal that were not found in any related animal type, or maybe
not in any other species. In other words, there were no similar “ancestral
genes” the orphan gene could have evolved from. It is just there, doing a task
unique to that animal, like allowing a honeybee to make honey.5 It
looks like the animal was designed with that gene because that specific animal
needs it. Orphan genes are pervasive in all life forms and pose a critical,
perhaps even fatal, obstacle to those seeking to explain the origin of life
forms by the evolutionary process.
With continued research the total number of orphan genes identified and
recognized has continued to increase, and at present may be as high as 10 to 30
percent of all known genes. More than 1,000 orphan genes are recognized in
humans. At least some of these orphan genes are very important; one of them is
responsible for the large brain in humans.6
An explanation consistent with the evidence is that the genes were part
of the original creation, and their existence in the individual taxa is because
of original design. Perhaps some of these orphan genes could be genes that
became activated because of altered environmental conditions on the earth after
the entrance of sin (epigenetics). In any case, they represent a sobering
challenge to the theory of naturalistic evolution.
A Better
Explanation
Evolutionary theory claims that new and different types of organisms,
such as fish, reptiles, and mammals, originated without a Creator. This theory
is now facing serious challenges because of the sophisticated mechanisms of
molecular biology that have been unveiled during the past half century. Evolution
theory remains alive because it is on artificial “life support,” in the form of
philosophical commitment to naturalism, with its assumption that life
did not have a Creator. Three recent discoveries, epigenetics, the ENCODE
project results, and orphan genes, have further undercut the intellectual
feasibility of “life support” for macroevolutionary theory. For many
individuals, naturalism and macroevolution are still the only acceptable
explanation for life, but this commitment is based increasingly on philosophy,
not on adequate evidence. We hope to convince the adherents of evolution that
there is a better and viable alternative that not only has explanatory value in
science, but holds the promise of eternal life to those who accept it.
1. ENCODE.
Thirty papers published at the same time in scientific journals, including
eight articles and reports in Nature 489 (Sept. 6, 2013): 45-113. See
also N. Carey, Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome (New
York: Columbia University Press, 2015).
2. J.
Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science 316 (June 29,
2007): 1836.
3. B.
G. Dias and K. J. Ressler, “Parental Olfactory Experience Influences Behavior
and Neural Structure in Subsequent Generations,” Nature Neuroscience 17
(2014): 89-96. Cf. D. Noble, “Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of
Evolutionary Biology,” Experimental Physiology 98 (2014): 1235-1243.
Doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134.
4.
V.
Hughes, “Epigenetics: The Sins of the Fathers,”
Nature 507 (
Mar. 6,
2014):22-24.
5. B.
R. Herb, F. Wolschin, K. D. Hansen, M. J. Aryee, B. Langmead, R. Irizarry, G.
V. Amdam, and A. P. Feinberg, “Reversible Switching Between Epigenetic States
in Honeybee Behavioral Subcastes,” Nature Neuroscience 15, no. 10
(2012): 1371-1373. Cf. W. C. Jasper, T. A. Linksvayer, J. Atallah, D. Friedman,
J. C. Chin, and B. R. Johnson, “Large-scale Coding Sequence Change Underlies
the Evolution of Postdevelopmental Novelty in Honeybees,” Molecular Biology
and Evolution 32, no. 2 (2015): 334-346.
6. M.
Florio, M. Albert, E. Taverna, T. Namba, H. Brandl, E. Lewitus, and W. B.
Huttner, “Human-specific Gene ARHGAP11B Promotes Basal Progenitor Amplification
and Neocortex Expansion,” Science 347, no. 6229 (2015): 1465-1470.
Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D., is research professor in the Biology and
Geology Department at Southwestern Adventist University, Texas. Leonard
Brand, Ph.D., is professor of biology and paleontology at Loma Linda
University, California.
According to Nihad Awad of the Council on
American-Islamic Relations, Muslims worship the same god as followers of the
world’s other two major religions. In an essay written to support a Wheaton
College professor who was fired after making similar claims, Awad said, “From
an Islamic perspective, there is only one deity worshiped by Muslims,
Christians, and Jews.
