Having assumed that God would only create with absolute perfection and would never allow any changes to His design, critics of divine creation assert that all “useless” organs and “unneeded” features are evidence against the belief that God created life. Two of the most commonly cited examples of these alleged imperfections in God’s creation are the human appendix and “Junk” DNA.
The appendix, a little worm shaped organ that sits at a major bend in the large intestine, seemed to be doing nothing except producing trouble by occasionally getting inflamed and causing appendicitis. However, new research published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology describes the discovery of a vital function that the appendix performs. These researchers found that the appendix provides a backup system, which has been important to the long-term survival of the human race. It seems that the appendix acts as a reservoir and shelter for the digestive bacteria that populate the human gut. These are the bacteria, such as E. Coli, that help break down food and assist in its transformation into polysaccharide molecules that can be absorbed by the body’s cells.
A reservoir of these “good bacteria” is needed because certain diseases, such as cholera, and many types of food poisoning wipe out these bacteria. It is very difficult for these bacteria to repopulate the gut after such an infection without a healthy colony to act as a starter. This is where the appendix comes in. It preserves a supply of these bacteria, which, subsequent to the eradication of friendly bacteria in the gut, are released back into the intestine, allowing the digestive system to come back online quickly to resume digesting food and to enable the victim to recover. Without an appendix, some common maladies would be fatal more often.
Oh yes, regarding “Junk DNA,” those sections of DNA which do not code for protein production, on August 25th this Blog published an article on new research done by the Encode Project showing that at least 50% of the so-called “Junk DNA” is not “Junk” at all, but indeed has numerous vital functions. As research continues on “Junk” DNA, more functions are being discovered for it. It seems that ultimately all of this “junk” will be found to have a vital purpose.
New research shows that these non-protein-coding DNAs are playing the pivotal role of “conductor” in regulating the cell’s activities. They produce huge numbers of micro-RNAs, which regulate gene expression and thereby “conduct” the activities of the coding sections of the DNA molecules. This is no small thing; these micro-RNAs are like little mid-level managers, accountants, and quality control agents in a factory. They are responsible for making sure that the right proteins get to the right place at the right time and much more.
This new, vast level of cellular complexity has been labeled the “Conductome.”
Why This Is Important
The existence of currently useless organs (if such actually exist) does not prove that God did not design them. It arguably could show that God was slow to remove them or, the truth be told, what it actually shows is that we have failed to understand their purposes. However, the existence of vestigial organs is necessary to the Darwinian claim of evolution by purely natural processes. If an organ is no longer needed, random mutations should begin to destroy it through the accumulation of small changes which do not effect the overall fitness of the organism
These two icons of Darwinism, the appendix and junk DNA, have been so widely touted in the literature that it will probably take decades before they are expunged. However, the Darwinists will soon advance new examples in their effort to discredit God’s role in creation. After all, in their view, Darwinism is unfalsifiable; so the evidence against it does not shake them.
Sources:
1. “Appendix Isn’t Useless After All” Global Health Vision, Richard Merritt, Duke University Medical Center.
2. “The RNA Conductome” The-Scientist, Vol. 21, Issue 10, p.55.
Friday, October 12, 2007
Friday, October 5, 2007
Cornell University Geneticist Rejects Darwinism
“Genetic Entropy” is the title of a stunningly important new book by Dr. John Sanford, a well known and long time Professor of Genetics and genetic researcher at Cornell University. The book details his reasons for “rejecting the Primary Axiom” of Darwinism – the idea that man and all organisms are “the product of random mutations plus natural selection.”
“Genetic Entropy” is a very difficult book to review in a short Blog. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you read it. Despite its title and technical details, the book is understandable and quite interesting.
Dr. Sanford begins by pointing out that the terms “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” have become a kind of “magic wand” for Darwinists. The terms are thrown at biological problems like an “Easy Button” that automatically explains everything. For example, why do giraffes have long necks? Easy, the longer the neck, the better to get to high leaves – therefore giraffes with longer necks have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. This ignores the fact that tens of thousands of mutually interdependent changes are required to lengthen the animal's neck. Just for starters: additional vertebrae are needed along with an enlarged body frame, lengthened and strengthened bones and muscles, a greatly enlarged heart and oh yes, a unique new organ similar to a spleen located next to the brain that acts as a backup blood reservoir to keep the giraffe from passing out when it raises it head to 20 feet above the ground.
This mode of magic-like explanation has even been extended to the persistence of religion – why does every culture have religion? Easy, religion “even though just a fantasy” has survival value.
The power in this book comes from its exploration of how genetics actually work in the real world and of the math behind it. To greatly simplify an enormously complicated process, consider the fact that your genetic code is like a library. The genes are like books in the library and are written on three billion nucleotide pairs, three of these pairs constitute one letter of your genetic code. This equals a library of about 1700 volumes (which incidentally have undergone “data compression so sophisticated that they are contained in an area 100,000th the size of the period at the end of this sentence).” In a lifetime, about 200 point mutations or misspellings will be introduced into each person’s genetic code. It is from these misspellings, combined with a mate’s misspellings, that natural selection is supposed to produce biological evolution.
However, there are some big problems with this theory. First, when you reproduce, you do not select genes one by one; you take your mate’s entire genome; you are forced to take all modifications good and bad. Additionally you do not know what mutations your mate has undergone because these are not expressed in the adult but will only be manifest in the offspring. You don’t even know what mutations have occurred in your own genetic code!
Second, most changes to the genetic code are point mutations that effect only one nucleotide out of six billion. These mutations have such tiny effects that they are of no value or harm; their effect is “neutral.” Therefore, they are not actually “selectable” unless they are fatal.
Third, it has recently been discovered that many genes are “polyconstrained,” meaning that they simultaneous code for more than one protein (usually three and possibly more) depending on how they are read. Consequently, mutations for these nucleotides cannot produce an improvement in the organism because even if one protein were improved then at least another one or more would be damaged.
Why this is Important
Sanford’s research caused him to lose faith in the Darwinian mechanism’s ability to drive Darwinian Evolution. In the book, he describes the painful intellectual change he underwent when he realized that he would have to reject the “Primary Axiom,” “the most sacred cow in biology.” He also realized that this probably meant the end of his career and possibly his expulsion from academia. However, he felt compelled to tell the truth about what his research really showed. He became convinced that life and its development could only be explained by a purposeful design, which he attributes to God.
He now views Darwinism with its claims that life is meaningless and that man is just a bag of molecules as a false doctrine which “…has been the most insidious and destructive thought system ever devised by man.”
However the recognition that we are the product of divine planning means that we do have purpose, and life does have meaning. The consequences of this truth are truly mind-boggling.
Source: Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome , John C. Sanford, 2005, Elim Publishing, Lima, NY
“Genetic Entropy” is a very difficult book to review in a short Blog. Therefore, I strongly recommend that you read it. Despite its title and technical details, the book is understandable and quite interesting.
Dr. Sanford begins by pointing out that the terms “Natural Selection” and “Survival of the Fittest” have become a kind of “magic wand” for Darwinists. The terms are thrown at biological problems like an “Easy Button” that automatically explains everything. For example, why do giraffes have long necks? Easy, the longer the neck, the better to get to high leaves – therefore giraffes with longer necks have a better chance of surviving and reproducing. This ignores the fact that tens of thousands of mutually interdependent changes are required to lengthen the animal's neck. Just for starters: additional vertebrae are needed along with an enlarged body frame, lengthened and strengthened bones and muscles, a greatly enlarged heart and oh yes, a unique new organ similar to a spleen located next to the brain that acts as a backup blood reservoir to keep the giraffe from passing out when it raises it head to 20 feet above the ground.
This mode of magic-like explanation has even been extended to the persistence of religion – why does every culture have religion? Easy, religion “even though just a fantasy” has survival value.
The power in this book comes from its exploration of how genetics actually work in the real world and of the math behind it. To greatly simplify an enormously complicated process, consider the fact that your genetic code is like a library. The genes are like books in the library and are written on three billion nucleotide pairs, three of these pairs constitute one letter of your genetic code. This equals a library of about 1700 volumes (which incidentally have undergone “data compression so sophisticated that they are contained in an area 100,000th the size of the period at the end of this sentence).” In a lifetime, about 200 point mutations or misspellings will be introduced into each person’s genetic code. It is from these misspellings, combined with a mate’s misspellings, that natural selection is supposed to produce biological evolution.
However, there are some big problems with this theory. First, when you reproduce, you do not select genes one by one; you take your mate’s entire genome; you are forced to take all modifications good and bad. Additionally you do not know what mutations your mate has undergone because these are not expressed in the adult but will only be manifest in the offspring. You don’t even know what mutations have occurred in your own genetic code!
Second, most changes to the genetic code are point mutations that effect only one nucleotide out of six billion. These mutations have such tiny effects that they are of no value or harm; their effect is “neutral.” Therefore, they are not actually “selectable” unless they are fatal.
Third, it has recently been discovered that many genes are “polyconstrained,” meaning that they simultaneous code for more than one protein (usually three and possibly more) depending on how they are read. Consequently, mutations for these nucleotides cannot produce an improvement in the organism because even if one protein were improved then at least another one or more would be damaged.
Why this is Important
Sanford’s research caused him to lose faith in the Darwinian mechanism’s ability to drive Darwinian Evolution. In the book, he describes the painful intellectual change he underwent when he realized that he would have to reject the “Primary Axiom,” “the most sacred cow in biology.” He also realized that this probably meant the end of his career and possibly his expulsion from academia. However, he felt compelled to tell the truth about what his research really showed. He became convinced that life and its development could only be explained by a purposeful design, which he attributes to God.
He now views Darwinism with its claims that life is meaningless and that man is just a bag of molecules as a false doctrine which “…has been the most insidious and destructive thought system ever devised by man.”
However the recognition that we are the product of divine planning means that we do have purpose, and life does have meaning. The consequences of this truth are truly mind-boggling.
Source: Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome , John C. Sanford, 2005, Elim Publishing, Lima, NY
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Atheism Is Killing Mathematics
Mathematics Professors Wanted – Believers Need Not Apply.
The new Princeton University Press book: How Mathematicians Think by William Byers a mathematician at UC Berkeley supports the extraordinary claim that atheism is “killing mathematics.” In his insightful review of the book, Gregory Chaitin one of the worlds leading mathematicians asks, “Would Euler, Cantor, and Ramanujan be welcome in the Mathematics Department of a university today?” His conclusion is a resounding “No”. These giants of mathematics would not be welcome among academic mathematicians because atheistic materialism has become the dominant paradigm in today’s universities.
Euler, who created much of the math used today, was so strongly informed by his Christian beliefs that he is recognized as a Lutheran Saint, and is commemorated each May 24 on the Church Calendar. Cantor invented, or in his view “discovered,” transcendental numbers (multiples of infinities) as a way to “better understand God.” Ramanujan, recognized as one of the greatest geniuses of the Twentieth Century for his work in Analysis and Number Theory, argued that, “…an equation is only of value if it expresses one of God’s thoughts…”
Other famous theistic mathematicians, who would now be expelled from academia, include the Sumerian priests who started it all with accounting and calculating the astronomical calendar, the Pythagoreans, who invented geometry and number theory (the foundations of advanced math) as part of their mystical investigations into knowing God, and a vast number of Christian luminaries including Descartes and Pascal. Towering above all of these are the penultimate mathematicians of all time, Newton and Leibnitz, the cofounders of modern calculus, with deeply and explicitly Christian motivations behind their mathematical investigations; they most definitely would not be welcome.
Byers and Chaitin believe that math began to die in the twentieth century as freedom of thought and creativity became constrained by an over emphasis on formulae; “…words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations, and applications” were all rejected in favor of a “nit-picking avoidance of mistakes.” Creativity was abandoned in favor of rigor, and this rigor has resulted in “rigour mortis.” As someone who has taught math, I was struck by the truth of these claims. It is very difficult to think of a truly important discovery in math coming after the 1950s.
What caused the creativity, imagination, and leaps of insight characteristic of mathematicians to be replaced with a stultifying and slavish attachment to formulaic rigor? It is Byers and Chaitin’s conclusion that secular humanistic beliefs about the nature of man are at the heart of the problem. Secular humanists contend that man is nothing more than an accident of nature, that consciousness is simply biochemical reactions in the brain, and that life itself is totally without purpose and meaning. “If mathematicians see themselves as machines they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.”
Why This Is Important
It is important that Christians know their intellectual heritage. Many surveys have been done on the religious beliefs of scientists. Mathematicians are always at, or near, the top of these studies showing that 70% to 80% of them believe in God. The percentage of believers decreases, as the field of scientific study gets “softer,” with the social sciences having the lowest percentage of believers.
The media consistently try to portray Christians as stupid, ignorant, benighted dupes, or worse. However, in the sciences, the exact opposite is true; intellectual capability tends to be highly correlated with belief in God. Christians need to know that they have been the key players in the cutting edge of mathematics, the world’s most fundamental intellectual endeavor.
Beyond the troubling damage being done to the advancement of mathematics by secular humanism, there is also the practical cost. Technological innovation, economic progress, and health are all tied to the continued advancement of math. Kill math and you kill innovation. Kill innovation and you kill economic growth and people.
Sources:
1. New Scientist, "Review: How Mathematicians Think" by Gregory Chiatin, July 25, 2007.
2. "How Mathematicians Think", by William P. Byers, 2007, Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, NJ.
The new Princeton University Press book: How Mathematicians Think by William Byers a mathematician at UC Berkeley supports the extraordinary claim that atheism is “killing mathematics.” In his insightful review of the book, Gregory Chaitin one of the worlds leading mathematicians asks, “Would Euler, Cantor, and Ramanujan be welcome in the Mathematics Department of a university today?” His conclusion is a resounding “No”. These giants of mathematics would not be welcome among academic mathematicians because atheistic materialism has become the dominant paradigm in today’s universities.
Euler, who created much of the math used today, was so strongly informed by his Christian beliefs that he is recognized as a Lutheran Saint, and is commemorated each May 24 on the Church Calendar. Cantor invented, or in his view “discovered,” transcendental numbers (multiples of infinities) as a way to “better understand God.” Ramanujan, recognized as one of the greatest geniuses of the Twentieth Century for his work in Analysis and Number Theory, argued that, “…an equation is only of value if it expresses one of God’s thoughts…”
Other famous theistic mathematicians, who would now be expelled from academia, include the Sumerian priests who started it all with accounting and calculating the astronomical calendar, the Pythagoreans, who invented geometry and number theory (the foundations of advanced math) as part of their mystical investigations into knowing God, and a vast number of Christian luminaries including Descartes and Pascal. Towering above all of these are the penultimate mathematicians of all time, Newton and Leibnitz, the cofounders of modern calculus, with deeply and explicitly Christian motivations behind their mathematical investigations; they most definitely would not be welcome.
Byers and Chaitin believe that math began to die in the twentieth century as freedom of thought and creativity became constrained by an over emphasis on formulae; “…words, ideas, diagrams, examples, explanations, and applications” were all rejected in favor of a “nit-picking avoidance of mistakes.” Creativity was abandoned in favor of rigor, and this rigor has resulted in “rigour mortis.” As someone who has taught math, I was struck by the truth of these claims. It is very difficult to think of a truly important discovery in math coming after the 1950s.
What caused the creativity, imagination, and leaps of insight characteristic of mathematicians to be replaced with a stultifying and slavish attachment to formulaic rigor? It is Byers and Chaitin’s conclusion that secular humanistic beliefs about the nature of man are at the heart of the problem. Secular humanists contend that man is nothing more than an accident of nature, that consciousness is simply biochemical reactions in the brain, and that life itself is totally without purpose and meaning. “If mathematicians see themselves as machines they will behave like machines; if mathematicians think they are trivial, then they will be trivial.”
Why This Is Important
It is important that Christians know their intellectual heritage. Many surveys have been done on the religious beliefs of scientists. Mathematicians are always at, or near, the top of these studies showing that 70% to 80% of them believe in God. The percentage of believers decreases, as the field of scientific study gets “softer,” with the social sciences having the lowest percentage of believers.
The media consistently try to portray Christians as stupid, ignorant, benighted dupes, or worse. However, in the sciences, the exact opposite is true; intellectual capability tends to be highly correlated with belief in God. Christians need to know that they have been the key players in the cutting edge of mathematics, the world’s most fundamental intellectual endeavor.
Beyond the troubling damage being done to the advancement of mathematics by secular humanism, there is also the practical cost. Technological innovation, economic progress, and health are all tied to the continued advancement of math. Kill math and you kill innovation. Kill innovation and you kill economic growth and people.
Sources:
1. New Scientist, "Review: How Mathematicians Think" by Gregory Chiatin, July 25, 2007.
2. "How Mathematicians Think", by William P. Byers, 2007, Princeton Universty Press, Princeton, NJ.
Friday, September 21, 2007
Most Research Findings Are False
“This ‘scientific research’ defies common sense!” Have you ever found yourself saying this after reading a “scientific” study, which makes an incredible claim such as, “porn is good for marital health,” or “there is no link between abortion and depression?” Have you noticed that “scientific research” with questionable results or conclusions seems to be on the rise? Have you read conclusions that do not appear to be justified by the “proof” given? If you have, you are not alone.
Recently there have been a number of high profile scandals involving bogus research findings. These have spanned the world and have covered every field from genetics to the disappearance from public view of the UN’s purported “Smoking Gun” of “Global Warming” - the now discredited and vanished “Hockey Stick.” However, these scandals are just the tip of the iceberg.
On September 14, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Most Science Studies Appear to be Tainted by Sloppy Analysis.” This article was based on the work of Dr. John Ioannidis of Tufts University. In Ioannidis’s provocative article, “Why Most Research Findings Are False,” he makes an even stronger case for skepticism of “scientific research.”
Dr. Ioannidis’s findings show that over half of all scientific research is seriously flawed and therefore not valid. Very often these flaws involve using the wrong mathematical tools, misapplying them, or inappropriate handling of data. While sloppiness is a major factor in false research, there are far more powerful motives for falsifying or misinterpreting research. These include money and, most importantly, “bias.”
Not surprisingly, a large amount of academic funding is dependent upon the results of research. If your funding comes from the National Education Association, your research on the academic success of parochial schools is not likely to show or emphasize the fact that parochial schools consistently out perform public schools at half the price. If you are a socialist, using environmentalism to advance your economic agenda, your research is not likely to point out that the United States (whose Congress has not ratified the Kyoto protocols) has met the CO2 reductions mandated by Kyoto, while most of the nations that have ratified the treaty have not met their mandated reductions.
Very often these “false research findings” are spin. A leading example is the failure of hundreds of genetic studies that aimed to bolster the Darwinian Tree of Life model of descent from a common ancestor. The researchers and media rarely mention that these unexpected and contradictory findings are a huge problem for Darwinism. The results are duplicitously spun and reported as being consistent with the Darwinian paradigm.
Why This Is Important
A few years ago DDT was banned based on research now universally acknowledged to be incorrect. The ban resulted in millions of unnecessary malarial deaths (mostly children) worldwide. Bogus research can also have disastrous social consequences. Margaret Mead’s studies of sexual freedom in South Pacific Islanders, including her book, “Coming of Age in Samoa,” are used to rationalize and to promote sexual promiscuity. Yet, it is widely acknowledged in the current anthropological literature that her findings were total fiction.
Be very skeptical of what you read and believe is supported by “scientific research,” especially if you are going to quote or act on it. Check to see who did the work, who funded it, where it was published, and what the agendas were of all involved. Read the details: was the data cropped, were the statistical tools appropriate, were the truly relevant questions even asked, was the question framed to produce the result desired? Very often you will find that even when the research has been done properly, the analysis may not support the conclusion as claimed.
Consequently, if research flies in the face of your common sense, it probably is false.
Source: Public Library Of Science: Medicine v.2(8); Aug. 2005
Recently there have been a number of high profile scandals involving bogus research findings. These have spanned the world and have covered every field from genetics to the disappearance from public view of the UN’s purported “Smoking Gun” of “Global Warming” - the now discredited and vanished “Hockey Stick.” However, these scandals are just the tip of the iceberg.
On September 14, 2007, the Wall Street Journal published an article entitled, “Most Science Studies Appear to be Tainted by Sloppy Analysis.” This article was based on the work of Dr. John Ioannidis of Tufts University. In Ioannidis’s provocative article, “Why Most Research Findings Are False,” he makes an even stronger case for skepticism of “scientific research.”
Dr. Ioannidis’s findings show that over half of all scientific research is seriously flawed and therefore not valid. Very often these flaws involve using the wrong mathematical tools, misapplying them, or inappropriate handling of data. While sloppiness is a major factor in false research, there are far more powerful motives for falsifying or misinterpreting research. These include money and, most importantly, “bias.”
Not surprisingly, a large amount of academic funding is dependent upon the results of research. If your funding comes from the National Education Association, your research on the academic success of parochial schools is not likely to show or emphasize the fact that parochial schools consistently out perform public schools at half the price. If you are a socialist, using environmentalism to advance your economic agenda, your research is not likely to point out that the United States (whose Congress has not ratified the Kyoto protocols) has met the CO2 reductions mandated by Kyoto, while most of the nations that have ratified the treaty have not met their mandated reductions.
Very often these “false research findings” are spin. A leading example is the failure of hundreds of genetic studies that aimed to bolster the Darwinian Tree of Life model of descent from a common ancestor. The researchers and media rarely mention that these unexpected and contradictory findings are a huge problem for Darwinism. The results are duplicitously spun and reported as being consistent with the Darwinian paradigm.
Why This Is Important
A few years ago DDT was banned based on research now universally acknowledged to be incorrect. The ban resulted in millions of unnecessary malarial deaths (mostly children) worldwide. Bogus research can also have disastrous social consequences. Margaret Mead’s studies of sexual freedom in South Pacific Islanders, including her book, “Coming of Age in Samoa,” are used to rationalize and to promote sexual promiscuity. Yet, it is widely acknowledged in the current anthropological literature that her findings were total fiction.
Be very skeptical of what you read and believe is supported by “scientific research,” especially if you are going to quote or act on it. Check to see who did the work, who funded it, where it was published, and what the agendas were of all involved. Read the details: was the data cropped, were the statistical tools appropriate, were the truly relevant questions even asked, was the question framed to produce the result desired? Very often you will find that even when the research has been done properly, the analysis may not support the conclusion as claimed.
Consequently, if research flies in the face of your common sense, it probably is false.
Source: Public Library Of Science: Medicine v.2(8); Aug. 2005
Friday, September 14, 2007
Microbes Have Consciousness
Despite their lousy name, “Slime Molds” are among the most amazing organisms in existence. During most of their lives they live as individual cells on the forest floor. They look and behave much like amoebas, spending their time scavenging for food among the detritus on the ground. They are especially fond of cow dung and rotting wood because these are rich in bacteria, the slime molds’ food of preference. However, on occasion, these solitary creatures will come together in large numbers to form a colony, called a plasmodium. Amazingly, slime mold plasmodiums look and behave like multi-cellular organisms. Some look like fungi, others like slugs. These plasmodium move about and can travel up to several feet a day.
When conditions for the colony are not favorable, the plasmodium may produce a stalk with a puffball full of spores. The puffball releases spores into the wind, which are carried off and produce more of the amoeba-like slime molds. After this reproductive action, the plasmodium may again disaggregate into individual cells that return to their solitary lives.
How is this possible? These individual cells appear to act with conscious volition. How do they communicate? How do they know how to differentiate into specialized organs?
As amazing as this cellular level intelligence is, a new, even more amazing phenomenon has been discovered at the sub-cellular level. Labeled “Natural Genetic Engineering” by Dr. James Shapiro, a University of Chicago Geneticist and Biochemist, and brought to light by Dr. Barbara McClintock in her 1983 Nobel Prize Acceptance Address, predictably, this stunning discovery has been largely ignored by the media.
Natural genetic engineering is the process by which cells modify their own DNA. If you are not familiar with this process, your eyes are not deceiving you, it actually happens. Cells, under challenge from something in their environment, can restructure their own DNA, thereby changing their internal biochemical capabilities. This restructuring process enables the cells to produce new proteins and other molecular products needed for survival.
Why This is Important
Dr. Shapiro has come under criticism and has had difficulty getting at least one paper published because of the implications of his work. The quotation below shows why.
“The idea of natural genetic engineering is controversial to some because it implies the existence of an “engineer” to decide when restructuring should occur.”… “The obvious problem is that it is hard to imagine material causes alone producing sentience and consciousness via random interactions. The sentience, together with messages in DNA and extrodinarily sophisticated genetic code and information processing systems, are arguably a large number of “smoking guns” for an intelligent cause operating in the system itself.”
The problem comes down to this: cells have no brains and no nervous systems to direct their activities, so where is the intelligence coming from that directs the cells to perform intricate, delicate surgery on their own genes? It would be easier for a human to perform complex brain surgery on him or herself; so, how is it possible for a cell to modify its own genetic code?
The answer of course is obvious to all except those who refuse to accept the truth glaring starkly in their faces. There are, of course, intervening natural mechanisms, which mediate these biological processes; however, God is the intelligence behind it all.
Source: http//Shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf
When conditions for the colony are not favorable, the plasmodium may produce a stalk with a puffball full of spores. The puffball releases spores into the wind, which are carried off and produce more of the amoeba-like slime molds. After this reproductive action, the plasmodium may again disaggregate into individual cells that return to their solitary lives.
How is this possible? These individual cells appear to act with conscious volition. How do they communicate? How do they know how to differentiate into specialized organs?
As amazing as this cellular level intelligence is, a new, even more amazing phenomenon has been discovered at the sub-cellular level. Labeled “Natural Genetic Engineering” by Dr. James Shapiro, a University of Chicago Geneticist and Biochemist, and brought to light by Dr. Barbara McClintock in her 1983 Nobel Prize Acceptance Address, predictably, this stunning discovery has been largely ignored by the media.
Natural genetic engineering is the process by which cells modify their own DNA. If you are not familiar with this process, your eyes are not deceiving you, it actually happens. Cells, under challenge from something in their environment, can restructure their own DNA, thereby changing their internal biochemical capabilities. This restructuring process enables the cells to produce new proteins and other molecular products needed for survival.
Why This is Important
Dr. Shapiro has come under criticism and has had difficulty getting at least one paper published because of the implications of his work. The quotation below shows why.
“The idea of natural genetic engineering is controversial to some because it implies the existence of an “engineer” to decide when restructuring should occur.”… “The obvious problem is that it is hard to imagine material causes alone producing sentience and consciousness via random interactions. The sentience, together with messages in DNA and extrodinarily sophisticated genetic code and information processing systems, are arguably a large number of “smoking guns” for an intelligent cause operating in the system itself.”
The problem comes down to this: cells have no brains and no nervous systems to direct their activities, so where is the intelligence coming from that directs the cells to perform intricate, delicate surgery on their own genes? It would be easier for a human to perform complex brain surgery on him or herself; so, how is it possible for a cell to modify its own genetic code?
The answer of course is obvious to all except those who refuse to accept the truth glaring starkly in their faces. There are, of course, intervening natural mechanisms, which mediate these biological processes; however, God is the intelligence behind it all.
Source: http//Shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/2006.ExeterMeeting.pdf
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
