Tracing DNA

I regard the Genesis Account as an inspired creation narrative, suitable for teaching what a wonderful God we have, framed from the limited world view of the peoples in which it circulated, just as the statement of Joshua that the "sun stood still" was framed from his limited world view and, while not literally true, certainly not a falsehood, either.

I greatly regret the efforts of some to keep God in their limited 6000 year bottle where He can be safely kept and understood by their minds. Instead, I appreciate every opportunity to learn more about the unfathomable greatness of the universe He has created. Tracing the migration routes of our ancestors through genetic relationships of peoples now extant is a marvelous idea and I for one am glad for the chance to gain some evidence about what actually happened.

 

The Bible is not a book of science. It is a book which details the nature and purpose of God's creation and His relationship to it.

 

Well, if I were a young earth creationist I wouldn't read National Geographic but instead limit my information to TV sit-coms and maybe Reader's Digest. There are too many anti-intellectual fundamentalists who think that the only thing more "evil" than a strip club is a library.

The intelligentsia do not bother themselves with the absurd claims of fundamentalist Christianity. You can find creationists at truck stops; you can find evolutionists in research labs.

 

Can creationists be scientists?

by Dr. Jason Lisle, Ph.D., astrophysics, AiG–USA speaker and researcher

First published in
Answers Update–USA
April 2005

It has been often said that “creationists cannot be real scientists.”

Several years ago, the National Academy of Sciences published a guidebook entitled Teaching about Evolution and the Nature of Science.1 This guidebook states that evolution is “the most important concept in modern biology, a concept essential to understanding key aspects of living things.”

In addition, the late evolutionist Theodosius Dobzhansky once made the now well-known comment that “nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.”2

But is a belief in “particles-to-people” evolution really necessary to understand biology and other sciences? Is it even helpful? Are there any technological advances that have been made because of a belief in evolution?

Although evolutionists interpret the evidence in light of their belief in evolution, science works perfectly well without any connection to evolution. Think about it this way: is a belief in molecules-to-man evolution necessary to understand how a computer works, how planets orbit the sun, how telescopes operate, or how plants and animals function? Has any biological or medical research benefited from a belief in evolution? No, not at all.

In fact, the Ph.D. cell biologist (and creationist) Dr. David Menton, who speaks at many conferences, has stated, “The fact is that, though widely believed, evolution contributes nothing to our understanding of empirical science and thus plays no essential role in biomedical research or education.”3

Nor has technology arisen due to a belief in evolution. Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?

Technology has shown us that sophisticated machines require intelligent designers—not random chance. Science and technology are perfectly consistent with the Bible.

So it shouldn’t be surprising that there have been many scientists who believed in biblical creation. In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton, who co-discovered calculus, formulated the laws of motion and gravity, computed the nature of planetary orbits, invented the reflecting telescope and made a number of discoveries in optics.

Consider Johannes Kepler, who discovered the three laws of planetary motion, or James Clerk Maxwell who discovered the four fundamental equations that light and all forms of electromagnetic radiation obey. These great scientists believed the Bible.

Today as well, there are many Ph.D. scientists who reject evolution and instead believe that God created in six days as recorded in Scripture. Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets. Did a belief in the Bible hinder his research? Not at all.
2005 Creation Mega Conference

(By the way, Dr. Humphreys will be one of more than 20 leading creationist researchers who will be speaking at this July’s Creation Mega Conference.)

On the contrary, Dr. Humphreys was able to make these predictions precisely because he started from the principles of Scripture. Dr. John Baumgardner, a Ph.D. geophysicist and biblical creationist, has a model of catastrophic plate tectonics, which the journal Nature once featured (this model is based on the global Genesis Flood).

Additionally, think of all the people who have benefited from a Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scan. The MRI scanner was developed by the creationist Dr. Raymond Damadian5 who has been featured twice in our Creation magazine.

Clearly, creationists can indeed be real scientists. And this shouldn’t be surprising since the very basis for scientific research is biblical creation. The universe is orderly because its Creator is logical and has imposed order on the universe. God created our minds and gave us the ability and curiosity to study the universe. Furthermore, we can trust that the universe will obey the same physics tomorrow as it does today because God is consistent. This is why science is possible.

On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver? If our brains are the by-products of random chance, why should we trust that their conclusions are accurate? But if our minds have been designed, and if the universe has been constructed by the Lord as the Bible teaches, then of course we should be able to study nature.

Yes, science is possible because the Bible is true.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/us/newsletters/0405lead.asp

 

And it's a good thing - science books have to be re-written every year as one discovery disproves old theories. The Bible, however, is just as true now as when it was written. God and His Word are one... and God never changes.

If we can't trust the description of that relationship given in Genesis, then we can't trust the description of the relationship described by the account of Jesus in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.

Are there a lot of TV sit coms dedicated to Creation Science? I haven't really seen any.

Anti-intellecual fundamentalists. I assume you mean Biblical fundamentalists? Your implication here is that those who believe the Bible are anti-intellectual. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Let me list a few people who's "fundamentalist faith" drove them in their scientific endevors:

Francis Bacon - developed the scientific method
Johann Kepler - Scientific astronomy
Blaise Pascal - Hydrostatics; Barometer
Robert Boyle - Chemistry; Gas dynamics
Isaac Newton - Dynamics; Calculus; Gravitation law; Reflecting telescope; Spectrum of light
Carolus Linneaus - animal classification system
James Joule - Thermodynamics
Gregor Mendel - Genetics
Louis Pasteur - Bacteriology, Biochemistry; Sterilization; Immunization
William Thompson, Lord Kelvin - Energetics; Absolute temperatures;
Michael Faraday - Electro magnetics; Field theory, Generator

The higher the order in our universe, the less the probability that it could have all happened by chance. These men realized that and studied the order in the universe because they believed the BIble was true. Science exists BECAUSE there is order in the universe that can be tested, measured, and observed.

The perversion to science that has hindered scientific progress is the process of eliminating the Creator from a study of the creation.

As Professor Werner Gitt has stated, “No information can exist without an initial mental source. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.” Information comes from greater information. Order comes from greater order.

Dr. Gitt Audio:
http://www.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/ramhurl?f=aig/Special/10-13-2000DrGitt.rm

 

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/mcintosh.asp

This link has an article by Dr. Andrew McIntosh. It provides the creationist argument for genetic information. I suggest you go read the entire article to know the creationist view of this topic. Here is a snippet of that article:


Order and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

There is a fundamental law in the universe to which there is no known exception. That is, that when there is any work done due to energy conversion, there is always some dissipation of useful energy. In purely thermodynamic terms, this means that, for a closed system, the measure of energy no longer available for useful work is increasing. This is called entropy.4 Thus, in a closed system, the overall entropy is increasing.

However, the law applies not only to the area of mechanics and engines. It applies to any system, since entropy is effectively a measure of the disorder in that system. In overall terms, disorder increases, cars rust and machines wear out. No spontaneous reversal of this process has ever been observed for a closed system.

For living systems, this law still applies. That which is dead (such as a stick or leaf from a tree) has no information or teleonomy within it to convert the sun’s energy to useful work. Indeed, it will simply heat up and entropy will increase.

Despite attempts by G. Nicolis Prigogine and coworkers to find auto-organization by random processes within living creatures, sustained order can never be achieved, because no new information is available. Indeed, after arguing that auto-organization by random processes may be possible in nonequilibrium systems, Prigogine states in the first reference:

Unfortunately, this (self-organization) principle cannot explain the formation of biological structures. The probability that at ordinary temperatures a macroscopic number of molecules is assembled to give rise to the highly ordered structures and to the co-ordinated functions characterizing living organisms is vanishingly small.5

Entropy, information and the living world

The major obstacle to evolutionary theories as to origins is that information cannot be defined in terms of physics and chemistry. The ideas of a book are not the same as the paper and ink which constitute the book. Indeed, those same words and thoughts can be transmitted through an entirely different media (such as a computer CD-ROM, floppy disk or a tape recorder). The chemicals do not define the message they carry. Meaning cannot spontaneously arise, since meaning presupposes intelligence and understanding.

One of the greatest discoveries was that of DNA by Francis H. Crick (UK) and James D. Watson (USA) in 1953. This molecule was found to be the universal storage medium of natural systems. A length of DNA is formed in such a way that two deoxyribose sugar-phosphate strands together form a double helix 2nm (10­9m) in diameter with a pitch of 3.4nm. Between these two strands are hydrogen bridges, across which four types of nucleotides are placed: Adenine (A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G). Effectively these four nucleotides are the chemical alphabet for writing “words” on the chemical “paper,” which is the two sugar-phosphate strands. The helix enables a 3-dimensional storage of information formed by the patterns of the chemical letters used. The DNA string is like a sequence of dots and dashes in a coded message. The coded information using the letters (ACG, GUC, CAU, etc.) rides on the complicated chemical molecules, but is not defined by it. Information does not equal energy or matter.

In radio signals there is a carrier wave of lower frequency than the information signal which rides on the back of the carrier wave. Once received, the carrier wave is not important and the message is converted to sound and speech. In exactly the same way, the information concerning one cell could have been written using entirely different coding, that is, a different ordering of the nucleotides. As long as the rules stay the same, it is unimportant. Alternatively, completely different chemistry could be involved, that is, a different “alphabet” leading to a completely new language structure. What is paramount in this discussion is that information (that is the setting of the rules, the language, code, etc.) has been there from the beginning. To argue that this came by chance is scientifically preposterous. As Professor Gitt has stated, “No information can exist without an initial mental source. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.”6

Though Dawkins has argued for a seemingly endless series of small advantageous mutations singled out by natural selection operating at the micro level7 there are formidable arguments against his position. Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis,8 discusses the problem of pleiotropy, that is, one gene affecting a number of seemingly totally unrelated functions in living organisms. For example, changes in the coat color genes in mice also affect body size. The microbiologist Behe has also ably rebutted Dawkins in his book Darwin’s Black Box,9 where he has shown that behind the many words of this arch-defender of Darwin, there is no mechanism in Darwinian evolution to add new information to a species at the macro level by a meaningful set of changes to the DNA letters, because “forward information” as to what the changes are aimed at is needed. Otherwise the intervening mutations have no advantage. Indeed, to form the code to begin with, it is vital that the sender and the receiver part of the cell both have prior agreement as to the meaning of the code, else there can be no communication. But Darwinian evolution only has chance mutations at its disposal. Because no “advance thinking” can possibly be allowed, there is no way that the nucleotides can arrange themselves in a “pre-defined code,” since this assumes prior knowledge. Thus, the very existence of the DNA-coded language stalls evolution at the first hurdle.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/Area/isd/mcintosh.asp

Go read the full article.

 

More spamming. How boring. Spamming is usually consider bad netiquette. Oh well.

"As Professor Werner Gitt has stated, “No information can exist without an initial mental source. No information can exist in purely statistical processes.” Information comes from greater information. Order comes from greater order."

You posted this junk just a few days ago. You never did respond to what I had to say about it then. Nor did you the first time around either. Quoting myself.

Besides, you have never committed to a definition of "information" nor have you given a concrete and logical reason why process such as exon shuffling or duplication and mutation that lead to new genes with new functions without destroying existing genes should not count as new information.</font>[/QUOTE]

 

And you don't even believe in the Bible, UTEOTW... so how does that effect your credibility here?

Or perhaps Ad Hominem is simply a waste of time and people will read the posts anyway?

 

" Computers, cellular phones and DVD players all operate based on the laws of physics which God created. It is because God created a logical, orderly universe and gave us the ability to reason and to be creative that technology is possible. How can a belief in evolution (a belief that complex biological machines do not require an intelligent designer) aid in the development of complex machines which are clearly intelligently designed?"

First, we have never been given a concrete way to tell if something is intelligently designed or not.

If I look at the watch on my wrist, it is easily to tell it is intelligently designed. That obviously is not so with life otherwise there would be no debate. Please tell us what specific characteristics could be used to distinguish between intelligently designed life and unintellignetly designed life. There a few threads already going where you could address specific aspects of this. Maybe the whale thread. Or the human evolution thread.

"In my own research field of astrophysics, I am reminded of several of the great minds of history. Consider Isaac Newton..."

"You" spend a lot of time in this "post" and the later "post" listing folks who were supposedly great scientists AND YEers. It is a bit dishonest, don't you think, to claim these people as great minds who did not accept evolution when there was no theory for them to accept or reject at the time.

"Consider Dr. Russ Humphreys, a Ph.D. nuclear physicist who has developed (among many other things) a model to compute the present strength of planetary magnetic fields4 which was able to predict the field strengths of the outer planets."

Yes, a YEer who has studied the heavens enough to know that there is no possible way that they could be young. So he goes through a bunch of mumbo jumbo which is completely at odds with relativity in order to postulate an idea that allows for an old universe and a young earth. And as far as his "prediction" on the field stregnths of the magnetic field of Uranus and Neptune, he said he predicted it to with in an order of magnitude. If you simply look at the value for earth and the value for Saturn and guess somewhere in between, you cannot miss it by much more than an order of magnitude. I think I could have done that.

"On the other hand, if the universe is just an accidental product of a big bang, why should it be orderly? Why should there be laws of nature if there is no lawgiver?"

What is that supposed to mean?

God created the laws that both the universe and evolution specifically behave under.

 

And you don't even believe in the Bible, UTEOTW... so how does that effect your credibility here?

Or perhaps Ad Hominem is simply a waste of time and people will read the posts anyway? </font>[/QUOTE]Lie. Lie. Lie. Lie. I only do not believe the version you try to force upon us. That is different than not believing the Bible.

And since when is it a personal attack to call spam "spam." How can that possibly be considered an personal attack. Your false claims that I do not believe the Bible are more like the general definition.

"Ad hominem: a direct attack against the person, the persons circumstances, or the belief that the person doesn't practice what she/he preaches, rather than dealing with the opposing argument." http://www.aros.net/~wenglund/appendixb.htm

We are debating which interpretation is correct and you have the nerve to attack me because I do not agree with you by saying I do not believe the Bible. Slander and personal attacks are par for the course when dealing with YEers.

 

"Order and the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

Misusing the second law again. Interesting.

Just tell us which step in the evolution of man from our last common ancestor with the other apes violated the 2nd law. Show your math.

"Denton, in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis..."

How dishonest to quote from this book without acknowledging that he has repudiated the book from which "you" are quoting in a subsequent book.

"[/i]...there is no mechanism in Darwinian evolution to add new information to a species at the macro level by a meaningful set of changes to the DNA letters...[/i]"

Tell us why processes such as exon shuffling and duplication and mutation which have been observed to give rise to new DNA with new useful functions does not count.

"As Professor Gitt has stated..."

Posting this again, I see, without addressing the issues raised about it. I guess that means that you cannot defend it. SO why do you keep posting it?

You ususally just ignore things you cannot counter. Or post an off topic reply.

 

And since when it is a personal attack to call someone who doesn't believe in a global flood a person who doesn't believe the Bible?

2Pe 3:3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,
2Pe 3:4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as [they were] from the beginning of the creation.
2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:
2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:
2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

 

2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.
2Pe 2:3 And through covetousness shall they with feigned words make merchandise of you: whose judgment now of a long time lingereth not, and their damnation slumbereth not.
2Pe 2:4 For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast [them] down to hell, and delivered [them] into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;
2Pe 2:5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;
2Pe 2:6 And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned [them] with an overthrow, making [them] an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;
2Pe 2:9 The Lord knoweth how to deliver the godly out of temptations, and to reserve the unjust unto the day of judgment to be punished:
2Pe 2:19 While they promise them liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption: for of whom a man is overcome, of the same is he brought in bondage.

 

"And since when it is a personal attack to call someone who doesn't believe in a global flood a person who doesn't believe the Bible?"

You accused me of personally attacking you? Where?! All I did was call spam "spam!"

Now when Jesus was taken up on the high mountain and shown the "whole world," just what could He see? The highest mountain in the area will only allow a view of maybe 100 miles or so.

 

I didn't attack you personally, all I did was say that you didn't believe the Bible... which you frequently admit to. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's your behavior that needs modification.

So is there a point there, or are you trying to assert that Jesus was not literally there? You see... it's not a stretch for someone who disbelieves the Bible in one area to disblieve it in another. If you can ignore Genesis, then you can ignore Jesus.

 

"I didn't attack you personally, all I did was say that you didn't believe the Bible... which you frequently admit to. If you have a problem with that, perhaps it's your behavior that needs modification."

Pay attention. You said "Or perhaps Ad Hominem is simply a waste of time and people will read the posts anyway?" And I asked just where did I make such a personal attack.

"So is there a point there, or are you trying to assert that Jesus was not literally there?"

Pay attention.

You said that I do not believe the Bible because I do not accept the flood as global. You will point to where Genesis says the whole world. I then point to the fact that when Jesus was taken up on the high mountain that the Gospel records that He was shown the "whole world." Now since you have a very limited view from even the tallest mountain in the region, this is proof that the Bible can use the "whole world" to mean just a local area. Is that not what exegesis is? Using the Bible as a commentary on itself?

"So is there a point there, or are you trying to assert that Jesus was not literally there?"

No, I have never done such a thing and it is distasteful for you to even suggest such a thing.

"You see... it's not a stretch for someone who disbelieves the Bible in one area to disblieve it in another. If you can ignore Genesis, then you can ignore Jesus."

I am not disbelieving or ignoring anything Biblical. I am not accepting what you say must be the only way to interpret it.

 

The point is not that these men were before or after evolution theory. The point here is two fold. First, we see that science was INVENTED by youg earthers - therefore the notion that YE are not scientific, or impede scientific progress is rejected. Secondly, we see that science can exist and progress just fine without evolution - it is non-essential to the work of science.

I watched a thing on the science channel yesterday about Albert Einstein. It said that his faith in God as the creator made him a big failure (in his 'theory of everything'). This totally leaves out the fact that it was his faith in God as the creator that lead to his other theories... such as General Relativity, Special relativity - E=mc2

The view that 'fundamentalism' is equivalent to anti-intellectualism is therefore rejected.