Amazing Creations – Hymenoepimecis Wasp

Hymenoepimecis Wasp

 

The Hymenoepimecis wasp is a parasitic wasp that temporarily paralyzes an orb web weaving Plesiometa argyra spider with its sting. Once the spider has been paralyzed, it lays an egg on its abdomen. The spider recovers and continues spinning its web and living normally while the wasp larvae grows by feeding on the spider’s fluids (called haemolymph). In approximately 14 days the larvae is ready to enter the pupa stage. The wasp larvae then uses a chemical to change the spider’s behavior. Instead of spinning a normal orb web, the spider spins a cocoon for the wasp.

Normal Web

Cocoon spun for the wasp larvae

The question we should ask is: how did this wasp gain the knowledge of this spider’s behavior? How did the wasp gain the ability to produce the chemicals needed to alter the spider’s behavior? How did it learn to apply this knowledge? If evolution is to be considered, we must acknowledge that this species only has one chance to get everything right by chance or the species of wasp would become extinct on the first attempt at an evolutionary jump.

Romans 1:
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,

Definition:
Haemolymph

The fluid that circulates in the body cavity of an insect, commonly thought of as “insect blood” (although it does do carry oxygen like mammal blood does).

Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is a fact. This has never been disputed by anyone who understands what micro-evolution is. Micro-evolution is the alteration of a specific trait due to natural response. Take a look at Darwin’s observation of the changes in finches. Isolated in the Galapagos Island, Darwin discovered finches that had much longer beaks than those found off the island. His assumption was that evolution was changing this species. However, these finches remained finches. Princeton professor Peter Grant completed an 18 year study of the finches on this island. He concluded that during drought years, the finches with shorter beaks died off because with a limited supply of seeds, only those that could reach the grubs living under tree bark could survive. With limited resources on a small island, these finches could not migrate to find food. We clearly observe natural selection, but not macro-evolution. However, it is not a permanent change. The finch offspring with shorter beaks prospered during seasons of plenty. Natural adaptation is the function of micro-evolution. There are three plainly observable principles to micro-evolution. 1. A trait will alter because of a stimulus. 2. The trait will return to the norm if left to nature or returned to its original conditions. 3. No new information is added to the DNA.

The argument for evolution is that species will change slightly over time and eventually change into something completely different and will over eons of time eventually become a new species. This theory was thought up as a hypothesis and as science advances, the facts have not been found to support it, but much has been provided to dispute it. There are no examples in nature that even remotely indicates a change of species through evolution. The fossil records have zero transitional forms. Even fossilized insects such as spiders and ants that have been dated to pre-historic times are identical to modern day spiders and ants. There are three critical flaws in the theory of evolution through gradual change: Dysfunctional change, the DNA code barrier, and natural selection removes DNA information but does not add new information.

1. Dysfunctional change or otherwise noted as irreducibly complex. When a trait is critical for the survival of the species, it must be fully functional or the species will die off and any ‘evolutionary progress’ would be lost. For example, a bat could not evolve from a rodent because it is completely dependent on its wings for survival. A half-evolved wing could not be used for walking because of its awkward length and shape and would not be functional for flying. The idea of a half-evolved bat is completely illogical. It would be easily tracked down by predators and it would be helpless to get food and survive on its own. This need for completeness can be clearly observed from the most primitive single celled animal to the most complex mammal. To contradict this idea would clearly contradict Darwin’s principle of natural selection. Many scientists are making a shift because gradual change produces dysfunction in-between species. The new emerging proposal is the quantum jump. Jay Gould proposed the idea that every living cell could possibly be encoded with the ability to change into any other living thing. He believes that an external stimulus causes this jump.

This is a bigger stretch than gradual evolution. Based on his idea, simple pond microbes would have the same DNA encoding as humans and science has proven that this is not the case. Primitive life forms have far less genetic material than more complex animals such as a mammal. Gould’s leap of faith also does not account for varieties of different species. If environment is the trigger and we all have the same DNA, the jump should be to the same creature. Plus we can plainly observe that this reaction does not occur today. Moving from a warm weather climate to a cold weather climate doesn’t trigger a different type of offspring.

2. The DNA code barrier. A fact of genetics is that trait changes have a ceiling. This perhaps is the biggest obstacle to gradual change through micro-evolution. Each rung of DNA is made up of four chemicals called nucleotides, designated by the symbols: A (adenine), G (guanine), C (cytosine), and T (thymine). These rungs of DNA are combined to provide a blueprint of the traits that organism will have. If you took all the DNA in the human body and put it in written format, it would fill up one million volumes the size of a 500 page encyclopedia. With all this genetic data, if two people could have as many children as there are atoms in the universe, no two children would be identical. Though there are a limitless combinations of traits that we possess, there is a limit to how far each trait can change.  There is a limit to the number of combinations of these chemicals; therefore there are a limited number of trait variations. No new genetic material can be added. Trait changes result in re-arranging the genetic code that is already present.  Mixing the available genetic code will produce variations in the trait but will not change into a completely different feature. For example, your parents genes are combined to produce your various traits. People have several different colors of hair, eyes, and skin, but without a mutation, these traits will remain within its boundaries. There are mutations that can occur and mutations almost always cause diseases or defects. However, even under mutation, skin will still be skin and eyes will still be eyes. Because of the code barrier, there are a limited number of variations in eye color. Different genes can create distinct variations but there is a limit. There can be rapid changes but inevitably, there is a return to the norm.

Charles Colson made mention of a few good examples of this principle. Darwin used breeding of the rock pigeon as a basis for his theory that gradual changes in species will evolve into new species. All pigeons are descendants of the rock pigeon. This pigeon is the same pigeon that can be found in most city parks. Through selective breeding, Darwin was able to produce many drastic variations of pigeons. He observed very rapid changes in traits that he could alter by this selective breeding and concluded that if he could make these changes within a few generations of pigeons, in time a new species of bird would develop. There are several flaws with this theory. 1. His intervention was the trigger for these various breeds. It did not occur naturally. 2. When left alone, his pigeons returned back to the ancestral rock pigeon within a few generations. If his theory were valid, they should have continued their ascent. 3. Darwin never lived to see that there was a natural barrier that slowed changes after a few generations and eventually reached a stopping point.

Change can be rapid when leaving the ‘norm’, but slows and eventually stops as the ‘ceiling’ is reached. There is a limit to the number of combinations a specific trait can have. Another good example of this comes from the book, ‘How Now Shall We Live’. 150 years ago, sugar cane farmers committed to increasing the sugar content in their sugar beets. At the time the project began, sugar content was at 6%. Through selective cross-pollination, within a few generations of beets the sugar content soared to 13%. Over the next 75 years these growers were able to inch the sugar content up to 17%. Now, 75 years after they were able to achieve the 17% barrier, the sugar beet remains at 17%. This is a clear example of the DNA code barrier that limits the variation of a specific trait. This example shows the same principle that Darwin unknowingly discovered. Rapid change, then slow change followed by no change.

Another conflict with the evolutionary theory is that when the DNA ceiling is reached, the species becomes weak. When a trait is exaggerated beyond its natural limits, the species weakens and suffers from genetically induced diseases or vulnerability to disease. The farther from the ‘norm’ the more disease prone the plant or animal becomes. So even with selective breeding and exploited traits, the species becomes vulnerable and at risk of extinction. Animals that are bred to bring out their desired features often become sterile or diseased. We can look around today and see examples of this problem. Anyone involved with farming is aware of the sterility problem associated with over-breeding. Dogs are very defect prone when they are bred to show quality. However, when left alone, species will soon return to the norm.

Natural selection thins the gene pool, but evolution demands that information be added. No evolutionary change (i.e. micro evolution) ever adds information to the genetic material. The only way evolution (i.e. Macro evolution) could be possible is if new information were to be added to the DNA.

Hybrids are often used as examples of how simple it is for evolution to change the DNA of plants or animals. You can cross pollinate two types of tomato plants to produce a new tomato plant that produces larger fruit. There are three problems with how evolutionists interpret this observation. The first problem is the most obvious; nature is not making a change, human intelligence is forcing the change and must prevent nature from reverting back. Second, the next generation of seeds is both sterile and unable to reproduce, or it reverts back to an inferior fruit. The third problem is that you are not taking on new information; you are combining two plants that already possess the necessary information and have compatible DNA structures. For evolution to be possible, there must be new information added that did not previously exist. In other words, information must come into the existing genetic material without any pre-arranged order, combine with the DNA that is already present and create a new or better code than that which already existed. If newly added information is garbled, the DNA that existed would be useless. If it was inserted in the wrong place or in the wrong order, the plant or animal produced would die or be completely dysfunctional. For example, a microbe would need to somehow acquire enough information through millions of errorless mutations that added to its DNA, which would enable it to become a fish. A fish would have to get the new information that did not previously exist to form a lung, then feet, feathers and so on. The problem is that science does not observe mutations that add to the information, but rather just the opposite. It is a loss of information that occurs when mutations occur. Natural selection is a good example of this.

Survival of the fittest is what thins out the gene pool; it does not increase or add to the genetic data. Natural selection does open the door for adaptation and changes within a species, but it accomplishes just the opposite of what is necessary for evolution. When natural selection occurs, the species that have certain traits are often weeded out. If Darwin had been correct in his observation and the Galapagos Island finches permanently weeded out the shorter beaked finches, they have not added to the gene pool, but they have subtracted genetic code and would no longer have the information necessary to produce offspring that has a shorter beak. Natural selection and evolution work against each other. Natural selection does sometimes make changes within a species, but the progression is downward and not upward – and the species does not become a new species, but rather a variation of the old. A permanent change is a loss of information, but evolution requires the addition of new information. In science we can clearly observe that when a species has a trait that the environment challenges, those who have this trait are weeded out. What has never been observed in science is the addition of new information. Even if an example should be found to have happened by chance, it doesn’t help the evolution cause. There must be millions of changes that add to the DNA information, without harming the species. We don’t observe this happening. We do observe mutations, but they are a loss of information or a defective copy of information that damages the species.

Richard Dawkins is arguably the most influential proponent of evolution today. In a debate, he was asked to provide one example where new information was added to DNA as observed by science. After a long silence, he passed by the question. He later rebutted the question with a three page argument but never addressed this original question and he did not provide one example. Even environmental adaptations harm the evolution belief system. When the environment changes and those animals that have traits that prevent them from surviving, there is not an increase of information, but a loss of genetic code.

Even microscopic evolution shows this problem. We have all heard about the ‘super germs’ that have grown resistant to antibiotics. In reality, they are weak germs. Bacteria that is resistant to drugs are usually destroyed by other organisms. For example, bacterium that has mutated so that it no longer pipes in the toxins that would normally destroy it are weaker than other bacteria because they also cannot pipe in the nutrients that are needed to flourish. It may fail to produce enzymes that enable it to resist the drugs, but this also becomes a crippling factor that limits its survival. The very mutations that make it resistant also make it vulnerable and weak.

These issues render change by micro-evolution impossible thus leaving macro-evolution as the only stand that evolutionists can take, and all the evidence clearly disputes the concept of macro-evolution. The fossil records show zero gradual change. Species in existence today show no change from the fossils that supposedly date back hundreds of millions of years. Interdependency also renders evolution an impossibility. Nature is filled with species that are completely dependent on other species. If one species cannot survive without another, evolution becomes an illogical deduction. There are also interdependencies between plants and animals. If a plant is dependent on an animal and an animal is dependent on that specific plant, the two would have to emerge from the evolutionary change at the exact same time and place. One generation later is too late.

Don’t mistake micro-evolution for Darwinian evolution. They are not related. When a Christian says they do not believe in evolution, it is not a reference to changes in specific traits. It is a reference to changes that require crossing the DNA limitations. When the facts stare evolutionists in the face, they are reduced to either insulting those who present the evidence or they must admit their world view doesn’t hold water. Evolutionists always call Christians and creationists non-thinkers because we question their illogical theories. Critical analysis is not un-intellectual, but it is unreasonable to refuse to honestly look at the whole picture painted when all the facts are presented. When someone builds their belief system around a godless world view, it leaves the realm of science and becomes a religious defense. Anyone who gets angry at the facts is not defending science, but is defending their hope that God does not exist and their hope that there is no God in which we are accountable.

Eddie Snipes
09/2000

How could billions of people have come through a small gene pool (Noah and his sons)?

Question:

I have to admit your theories on how the Noah’s ark story could be true are quite interesting. However, there is one other thing that you have forgotten. According to the bible, god only spared Noah and his family (Genesis 6:10 “And Noah became the father of three sons: Shem, Ham, and Japheth.). (Genesis 6:18 “But I will establish My covenant with you; and you shall enter the ark-you and your sons and your wife, and your sons’ wives with you.) That means that a total of 8 people entered the Ark. If god destroyed all other human life on earth, that means that only 8 people were left to populate the earth. Science has proven that a society cannot thrive with out a large enough gene pool, even several hundred people would not be enough to keep a society going. How can 8 people do it then?

The story of Noah’s Ark cannot possibly be true, inbreeding can only take you so far, how could we have become a population of over 6 billion people, with such diverse physical characteristics come from only 8 people, 4 of which already share the same gene pool.

Explain that

D. P.

Answer:

Your argument is self-refuting. Even evolution must pass through the same path the Bible takes us. If it is impossible for 6 billion people to develop the diverse characteristics through only 8 people, then it is also impossible for evolution to produce 6 billion people with those same diverse characteristics. Did the evolutionary by-chance process have the large gene pool you claim was necessary? In fact, science has proven the opposite of your claim. Research reveals that all societies have a common link in the gene pool. Of course evolutionists claim that link came from an evolutionary branch and not special creation.

If you take two sets of finches with identical characteristics and place them on isolated islands and allow them to grow for 2-3 hundred years, you will have two completely different breeds of finches. Climate, food supply and various other external stimuli affect physical traits. A finch is still a finch, but characteristics will vary (See Macro vs. Micro evolution on my website). The same is true for the human race. Why is it that my children look like me and I look like my parents, but if I go back 6 or 7 generations, the resemblance is lost? We change in appearance according to our diet, surroundings and many other factors. Evolution must pass through the same path creation stands on, only evolution must explain away answers rather than providing them.

If you are wondering how the gene pool could survive genetic defects with such a limited number of people, read the section called, ‘The unanswerable question’ on the page http://exchangedlife.com/Sermons/gen/gen_contvsy.shtml.

This explains the gene question about how Cain got his wife and why intermarrying was acceptable in early biblical history.
 

Eddie Snipes
2001

Do the existence of Dinosaurs contradict the Bible?

I have been asked several times whether the Bible and the creation account allows for the existence of dinosaurs. Unfortunately it is also fairly common for Christians to deny the existence of dinosaurs altogether. In reality, the Bible validates the existence of Dinosaurs as does history and archaeology. It is true that evolution does allow for dinosaurs and mankind to coexist, however we have ample evidence that they did. Let’s take a moment and examine both historical accounts and Biblical accounts of dinosaurs.

Look first at the Bible in Job 41:

15 ” Look now at the behemoth, which I made along with you; He eats grass like an ox.
16 See now, his strength is in his hips, And his power is in his stomach muscles.
17 He moves his tail like a cedar; The sinews of his thighs are tightly knit.
18 His bones are like beams of bronze, His ribs like bars of iron.
19 He is the first of the ways of God; Only He who made him can bring near His sword.
20 Surely the mountains yield food for him, And all the beasts of the field play there.
21 He lies under the lotus trees, In a covert of reeds and marsh.
22 The lotus trees cover him with their shade; The willows by the brook surround him.
23 Indeed the river may rage, Yet he is not disturbed; He is confident, though the Jordan gushes into his mouth,
24 Though he takes it in his eyes, Or one pierces his nose with a snare.

Contrary to the opinion of some, there are no modern day animals that fit the description of this behemoth. It is not an elephant, rhinoceros, or hippopotamus. None of these have the tail like a cedar. Whenever you see the cedar tree mentioned in the Bible it is referencing the great cedars (such as the cedars of Lebanon). The cedars of this time period were magnificent and awe inspiring. Solomon for example negotiated a deal to bring the great cedars of Lebanon to build the temple because there were no other tries like them. Dozens of times the Bible refers to the cedar as a picture of strength. So when we look at this description, the tail like a cedar gives us a word picture of a large, powerful tail. This creature is able to stand in a raging river without fear and without being moved. Bones of bronze and ribs like bars of iron are equally descriptive of a massive and strong creature. Though the word dinosaur is a modern term, I believe this is a clear description of a dinosaur. Equally significant is the Bible’s claim that this behemoth was created along with man – in other words, he co-existed with the human race.

History also attests to the coexistence of man and dinosaurs. The pictures below show compelling evidence to this fact. Some critics argue that these are mythological creatures that made their way into ancient art, however one problem cannot be explained away – accuracy. Most of these artifacts are identifiable as known dinosaurs today yet they were drawn hundreds and often thousands of years before dinosaurs were known to man. Think of all the dragon legends and sea creature legends that have filled history. Is it possible that the monsters the world feared were more than figments of the imaginations of many, many men? As you examine these pictures, ask yourself, “How did these ancient people know what a dinosaur looked like?”

One evolutionist commented on a Greek drawing of a dinosaur that was clearly an accurate representation of a known species of dinosaur stated, “It is clear that the Greeks also dug fossils”. It is interesting that no history validates this claim. It is a weak attempt to explain the inevitable conclusion – they knew exactly what the creature looked like. The replicated look of dinosaurs is a modern scientific achievement. If one accurate drawing was found in ancient art we could say argue that it was a coincidence. However, when we have so many examples, can we continue to wear blinders to the coexistence of man and dinosaurs? It takes complete and blinding faith to deny this fact when it stares you in the face.

The ‘problem children’ are on both sides of the debate. Some Christians see the fossils of dinosaurs and the overwhelming evidence that they existed and yet they still say, “Dinosaurs never existed”. This is because they are willfully blind because they don’t understand that dinosaurs don’t disagree with the Bible. For fear of undermining their blind faith, ,they refuse to acknowledge what is clearly in front of them. The same is true for evolutionists. They look at the overwhelming evidence of coexistence and refuse to see it. They also are afraid that the truth may undermine their faith in evolution. They have adopted blind faith without reason. In reality, all truth leads to God. If the Bible is true, examining all the evidence will ultimately validate that truth. Evidence only refutes the Bible when it becomes a half-truth that is manipulated – which is in reality a lie. When all the facts are allowed to be examined, the evidence points to the truth of scripture.

Below are examples of dinosaurs realistically depicted in ancient writing and art:


Under King Nebuchadnezzar the Babylonian Ishtar gate was fashioned with relief designs depicting animals such as lions, bears and this dinosaur-like creature. Local animals were the subject matter for all other depictions within the wall. Where did they get the model for this creature?

 


The Nile Mosaic of Palestrina.
This mosaic from the 2nd century shows other animals local to the area such as Crocodiles and Hippos. This scene is one of many and shows hunters killing a creature labeled on the mosaic as ‘Crocodile Leopard’.

 


Plesiosaur.
The top picture is an amazing drawing of ancient people hunting, butchering and dancing around a creature that looks very much like a plesiosaur.

The second picture is a model of a plesiosaur skeleton.

The third picture is a scientific drawing of what a plesiosaur may have looked like along with a skeleton of a plesiosaur being excavated.


Cave Drawings.

The top photo is Cree Indian art on the Agawa Rock at Misshepezhieu, Lake Superior Provincial Park, Ontario, Canada. This depicts a horned dinosaur-like creature.

The middle drawing shows hunters around dinosaur-like creatures depicted in Arizona’s Havasupai Canyon.

The bottom photo in this frame highlights the drawing and compares it to a Edmontosaurus.


These photos of carved works from Hierakonpolis depicting modern animals and two long-necked creatures that resemble dinosaurs.

The top artifact depicts a dinosaur like creature. It was once thought to be inaccurate because of the scale patterns were inconsistent with scientific assumptions. however, Geology publications in 12, 1992 reported new discoveries that reported, “Recent discovery of fossilized sauropod (diplodocid) skin impressions reveals a significantly different appearance for these dinosaurs. The fossilized skin demonstrates that a median row of spines was present… Some are quite narrow, and others are broader and more conical.” (Geology, “New Look for Sauropod Dinosaurs,” December, 1992, p. 1,068.)”

The middle picture is an urn depicting a scene from Greek Mythology. The urn has pictures of dolphins, penguins, fish, an octopus and a see creature that looks similar to a mosasaurus. The bottom picture is an illustration of what a mosasaurus may have looked like. Some species also have a narrow cranial crest between the eyes as pictured in the urn.

This Roman Mosaic shows two creatures fighting that closely resemble the tanystropheus shown below.


In 1691 in Rome there was a report of a dragon like creature that lived in the caves near the local wetlands. This realistically accurate sketch of the partially decomposed corpse of the bird. What is interesting to note is that the crest on the skull was not depicted in most of the pterosaur illustrations. In National Geographic News in July 18, 2002, the article called ‘New Find: Pterosaur Had Strange Crest, Fishing Style’ showed that some species had such a crest as depicted in this illustration from 17th century Rome.

The top picture is from a Mesopotamian cylinder dated 3300 BC. It depicts dinosaur-like creatures similar to an Apatasaurus.

An ancient culture, the Sumatrans created artwork that depicts several dinosaurs.


Over 1100 Inca Ceremonial Burial Stones were found in tombs in Peru during the 1930’s. Many of these stones have realistic and accurate depiction of dinosaurs. In 1571, the Spanish conquistadors were the first to report burial stones with strange creatures carved on them.

In 1945, Waldemar Julsrud discovered carvings that depicted dinosaurs at El Toro Mnt near Acambaro, Mexico. Over the next few decades, over 30,000 of these carvings have been unearthed. The carvings date between 800BC and 200AD. These findings have been challenged and tested by researchers on multiple occasions and have remained as authentic artifacts. One is believed to be an Iguanodon which was unknown until over 30 years after these carvings were discovered.


This African artifact closely resembles a sauropod that local legends say still roams remote areas of Africa today. Several expeditions have been launched to validate these sightings but none have been successful.

Eddie Snipes
2001

Doesn’t Junk DNA prove our evolutionary past?

Junk DNA?

One of the great errors of evolution is that evolutionists falsely assume that evolution has more answers than they actually have. If an evolutionists says it, it must be a fact. In truth, evolution is based on many assumptions and even disproved data. Ernst Haeckel’s falsified embryo development, disproved and falsified missing links, junk dna, vestigial organs and other disqualified evidence are still taught as fact in order to persuade students to buy into the evolutionary belief system. As these false assumptions are proven to be false by science, they continue to be taught by educators. Once evolutionary researchers reject an assumption, it is complete dishonesty to continue to teach these things as fact. It could have been claimed that it was a mistake based on a lack of information in the past, but once the truth is known, if evolutionist continue to claim the error as a fact, then it has become a lie.

Junk DNA is such an example. No credible scientist still claims that there is such a thing as junk DNA. It has now been proven to provide a necessary function in DNA. When scientists were unaware of the function of certain parts of the DNA they jumped to the false conclusion that it was junk, but now we know that it serves in regulating how proteins are formed and other regulatory functions. Even Wikipedia acknowledges that this was a false assumption, but dishonest educators continue to teach this to students knowing that students will never question or look at the facts on their own. Even evolution believing scientist disclaim the concept of junk DNA. Below is an article taken from the pro-evolution BBC on the science of what was once called junk DNA:

Salvage prospect for ‘junk’ DNA

By Paul Rincon
BBC News science reporter

DNA   Image: BBC

The genome may possess far more complexity than was imagined

A mathematical analysis of the human genome suggests that so-called “junk DNA” might not be so useless after all.

The term junk DNA refers to those portions of the genome which appear to have no specific purpose.

But a team from IBM has identified patterns, or “motifs”, that were found both in the junk areas of the genome and those which coded for proteins.

The presence of the motifs in junk DNA suggests these portions of the genome may have an important functional role.

The findings are reported in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences journal.

But they will have to be verified by experimenters in the lab, the scientists behind the work point out.

Dr Andrew McCallion, who was not an author on the new paper, commented: “Up until not so long ago, we were under the impression that the vast majority of information in the genome, if not all of it, was encoded in those stretches of DNA that encoded proteins.

“We now understand there is much more complexity involved,” Dr McCallion, from the McKusick-Nathans Institute of Genetic Medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine in Baltimore, US, told the BBC News website.

Lead author Isidore Rigoutsos and colleagues from IBM’s Thomas J Watson Research Center used a mathematical tool known as pattern discovery to tease out patterns in the genome.

This technique is often used to mine useful information from very large repositories of data in the worlds of business and science.

Scrapheap challenge

They sifted through the approximate total of six billion letters in the non-coding regions of the human genome and looked for repeating sequence fragments, or motifs.

“One of the things that arises from this paper is that junk DNA may not be junk. But this needs to be verified,” Dr Rigoutsos told the BBC News website.

The researchers found millions of the motifs in non-coding DNA. But roughly 128,000 of these also occurred in the coding region of the genome. These were also over-represented in genes which are involved in specific biological processes.

These processes include the regulation of transcription – the beginning of the process that ultimately leads to the translation of the genetic code into a peptide or protein – and communication between cells.

Dr Rigoutsos said his team’s work suggested, “a connection between a vast area of the genome we didn’t think was functional with the part of the genome we knew was functional.

“The average lab does not have the resources to prove or disprove this, so it will need a lot of effort by lots of people,” he explained.

THE DNA MOLECULE

Graphic, BBC

The double-stranded DNA molecule is held together by four chemical components called bases

Adenine (A) bonds with thymine (T); cytosine(C) bonds with guanine (G)

Groupings of these “letters” form the “code of life”; there are about 2.9 billion base-pairs in the human genome wound into 24 distinct bundles, or chromosomes

Written in the DNA are about 20-25,000 genes which human cells use as starting templates to make proteins; these sophisticated molecules build and maintain our bodies

Gene silencing

The paper in PNAS suggests that the actual positioning of the motifs is associated with small RNA molecules that are involved with a process called post-transcriptional gene silencing (PTGS).

“A human embryo starts out as a single fertilized cell and rapidly divides into a widely complex series of cells that become a human being,” explained Dr McCallion.

“Every cell in that human being contains the same complement of genes and what makes each cell different is the precise way that genes are turned on and turned off.”

PTGS turns genes off after the process of transcription has taken place. One way in which this occurs is through “RNA interference”, which involves the introduction of double-stranded RNA molecules.

These trigger the degradation of another type of RNA molecule known as messenger RNA (mRNA), “down-regulating” the gene. During transcription, this molecule encodes and carries information from genes to sites of protein synthesis.

“These regions may indeed contain structure that we haven’t seen before,” said Dr Rigoutsos.

“If indeed one of them corresponds to an active element that is involved in some kind of process, then the extent of cell process regulation that actually takes place is way beyond anything we have seen in the last decade.”

Eddie Snipes
2007

Is it unscientific to question misleading computer models that ‘prove’ evolution?

Is it dishonest to question misleading computer models that ‘prove’ evolution?

From Wesley:
I just read your article on the evolution of the eye and I’ve got to say it’s the worst thing I’ve read in awhile and demonstrates quite clearly the scientific ignorance that creationists of use to defend their premise. I believe in God but I don’t believe in the interpretation of Genesis that God created the world basically by magic in six literal days, but the overwhelming scientific evidence clearly points that it did not and God would not have made the world to seem like something that it is not because he loves the truth. I also do not believe a God that loves truth would approve of you not taking the time to fully understand the science you are writing against or deliberately misunderstanding it in order to try to trick people into thinking that you make sense. I’m a Christian but reading sites like this makes me embarrassed to be associated with the kind of tricks and sloppy thinking that some other Christians publish.

Response:
This is a challenge to the section on my critical thinking study about the evolution of the eye (http://exchangedlife.com/Creation/think/eye.shtml).

This is typical of the types of letters I get from atheists and those who claim to be Christians but hold to the doctrine delivered by atheists. Ironically, the scientist I quoted heavily from was Richard Dawkins who is a self proclaimed atheist and rabidly anti-Christian. This challenge is defending Richard Dawkins against my criticism of his deceptive explanation of the evolution of the eye. In this article I quoted Dawkins’ analysis of Nilsson and Pelger’s computer model that supposedly proves that the eye evolved through evolutionary processes. Dawkins first explains that they bypassed the development of the components of the eye and created a model that assembles the pieces which are assumed to have already developed.

Nilsson and Pelger then arbitrarily applied two rules to ‘guide’ the evolutionary process: gradual change and no negative mutations. Since only negative mutations have been observed by science, it is completely dishonest to create a model that does not allow negative mutations and then claim that it proves evolution. Apparently I am an embarrassment to Christianity for pointing out this fact. Perhaps the evolution promoting publication from Atomic Scientists would be less embarrassing. Consider this quote:

“It is entirely in line with the accidental nature of mutations that extensive tests have agreed in showing the vast majority of them detrimental to the organism in its job of surviving and reproducing — good ones are so rare we can consider them all bad.” (Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 11:331)

Dawkins also stated the following, “Unlike human designers, natural selection can’t go downhill not even if there is a tempting higher hill on the other side of the valley”. So the evolution argument declares that no harmful change is allowed to occur, loss of information is not allowed (going downhill), and gradual increases are required. This junk science is just the opposite of what is observed. The changes observed are always the loss of information, mutations are always harmful, gradual change that adds to a species has yet to be observed. All the rules these scientists have applied completely contradict the evidence and give the impression of success when in truth science contradicts evolution.

Since pro-evolution scientists point out the problem of negative mutations, it is unscientific to create a so-called scientific computer model that excludes the primary problem of evolution. Which shows more scientific ignorance, pointing out the flaw in the research model or allowing an intentionally deceptive demonstration to go unchallenged?

Eddie Snipes
2007

How did Noah get that many animals on the ark?

Question:

I don’t mean to catch you by surprise, but I have a question about the ark. When I ask Christians they just say that I have to believe and no one can explain this question. How did Noah get all the varying species on the Ark? I find it hard to believe that Noah could fit that many animals on the ark and feeding them would be nearly impossible. Can you explain this to me?

Answer:

The Bible does not say that Noah stored 2 of every species, it says 2 of each kind (Genesis 6:20). That may sound like I’m arguing semantics, but it is a very significant difference. An example of this would be dogs. It is a fact that all dogs come from a common ancestor (the dingo I believe) and it is also a fact that if you leave dogs to interbreed they will return to the common ancestor. It is only by selective breeding (preventing nature from running its course) that new breeds emerge. There may be hundreds of dog breeds but dogs are a single kind. The same is true for pigeons, livestock and every other kind.

Land dwelling creatures and what has breath are the only creatures taken on the ark. The ark was 3 floors deep and almost two football fields long. Estimations are that there was enough room on the ark for 125,000 sheep. In our present world there are 18,000 species known that would qualify for a trip on the ark. Even if we doubled that to make room for extinct species that may have been around in Noah’s day, we would still only have 36,000 species. If we double that to take two of each kind, that would be 72,000 animals. The average size would have been much smaller than a sheep. However, it would be unnecessary to take 2 of each species, you would only need 2 of each kind. This would greatly reduce the number of animals on the ark. But even if each species were represented, there would be ample room to spare. However, the Bible calls for 2 of each kind, not each species. But whether God chose each species or each kind and the species are variants of each kind, the ark still accommodates the numbers.

As far as feeding each animal, that is also unnecessary. Observe wild animals during storms. Do you ever see birds flying and singing during a violent storm? Animals naturally find shelter and become dormant during adverse conditions.

I don’t think these types of questions should ‘catch a Christian by surprise’. If the scriptures are true, all evidence should point to God and observable evidence should agree with scripture. That does not mean that Bible critics will agree with scripture nor does it mean that critics viewing the same facts will draw the same assumptions. It does mean that we as Christians can be confident that true science and honestly represented facts will agree with the Bible. I know that some avoid the facts because they are afraid that it may undermine their faith. However, if we truly believe God is real and the Bible is His Word, we have no reason to avoid the truth. Either the Bible is true, or it is not. I believe it is true, therefore I search out both sides of the argument to get the full picture.

The fear factor works both ways. I have engaged many atheists who are afraid to look at the evidence unless it is filtered through atheist resources. They never see the whole picture. From my own observations I have found that when the issue is honestly examined by reading well documented arguments from both sides of the issue, the whole picture always validates the Bible.

Eddie Snipes
6/2007