![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif){kind=small}
Suprise visit from Canada.....
Posted on 2009.12.15 at 08:45Current Location: Illinois
Current Mood:
=)
Current Location: Illinois
Current Mood:
=)
cold
Antibiotics and Immunity to Evolution
Posted on 2009.12.10 at 09:24Current Location: Illinois
Current Mood:
pleased
Creationists often argue against evolution by noting that we cannot observe evolution occurring on a grand scale today. In response, evolutionary scientists like to point to bacteria.
Many scientists argue that evolution is happening all the time in bacteria. Bacteria, with their brief life cycles and their ability to reproduce vast multitudes of generations within a nice, short, observable time frame, give scientists a chance to demonstrate "evolution in a Petri dish". The ability of bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics has been trumpeted as evidence of the driving force of evolution and the ability of gene swapping and mutations to make these organisms better able to survive.
However, while bacterial resistance to antibiotics is a reality, it falls far short of demonstrating the theory that all things descended from single-celled organisms billions of years ago. In fact, bacteria that become resistant to antibiotics often do so at the cost of their "relative fitness" and can lose pre-existing cellular functions.
Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics in several ways:
Natural resistance:
Bacteria already naturally have some degree of protection against antibiotics, which they need when they run into these enemies, like penicillin, out in the great big world. This resistance only goes so far, and most bacteria will be killed off when faced with large doses of antibiotics for a significant period of time. The bacteria with the greatest resistance ability sometimes survive, though, going on to reproduce and make a plethora of antibiotic-resistant offspring. This is why doctors warn patients to take their entire antibiotics prescription and not stop halfway after the symptoms go away. Failing to take the entire course can allow the strongest bacteria to stick around and reproduce, paving the way for the superbugs we see today.
Of course, the resistance is already present in the bacterial gene pool. While these super strong bacteria offer a basic survival-of-the-fittest demonstration, their resistance to antibiotics is not an essentially new development and therefore doesn't prove evolution in a grander sense.
Horizontal gene transfer.
Bacteria have a tremendous ability to swap genes with each other. This is vital for the health of bacteria, since they reproduce by binary fission (dividing into two parts) and do not benefit from the recombination of genes found in sexual reproduction. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria can exchange their genes with other bacteria, and thus pass on the ability to thumb their bacterial noses at modern medicine. Once again, the resistance is already there in the bacterial gene pool and is not an essentially new development.
Mutations. Mutations occur in bacteria in a variety of ways, including copy errors in the bacterial DNA and exposure to mutagens (chemicals or ionizing radiation) that affect bacteria's genetic material. Mutations have also enabled bacteria to resist antibiotics or chemical cleansers in some interesting, but not necessarily truly beneficial, ways.
For instance, some bacteria naturally produce the enzyme penicillinase, which they use to inactivate penicillin when they run into it in nature. If a bacterium has a problem with the gene that codes for shutting off the production of penicillinase, that bacterium will just keep producing the enzyme. This is great for the bacterium in the presence of a penicillin-based antibiotic regimen; in a human body filled with penicillin, this bacterium can survive to reproduce while the normal bacteria around it die. In normal life, though, the bacterium has a problem. It's putting a lot of energy into producing penicillinase, and because it can't turn the valve off, so to speak, it will have trouble doing all the other things it needs to do and will eventually penicillinase-produce itself to death.
Many bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics because something has gone wrong and they simply are not functioning properly. The loss of regulatory proteins is a big one. Some bacteria also lose full functioning in transport proteins. Transport proteins are necessary for bringing certain items into the cell. Bacteria that are resistant to Kanamycin get that way because they aren't correctly producing a transport protein, and therefore the Kanamycin can't get through the cell membrane into the bacterial cell to destroy it. If a transport protein is not functioning right, that means something is wrong with the cell, even if that lack of function does protect the bacteria from Kanamycin.
In short, broken genes can help bacteria survive in some circumstances, but we always find they do so at the expense of the general health of the bacteria. In a normal environment, these bacteria die off much more quickly than their normal, healthy relatives.
Gaining An Ability? Citrate in E coli:
In 2008, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing found that a population of E coli, after thousands of generations, had started having trouble metabolizing glucose and instead had started to metabolize citrate. This was a big deal, and was touted as an important evolutionary step for the E coli. As New Scientist put it,
"…But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations - the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use."
To the common reader, that sounds as though E coli mutated a brand new trait out of thin air. Especially since New Scientist goes on to say, "Indeed the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. Coli from other species."
It is true that regular old E coli doesn't normally metabolize citrate. However, it does have the ability to do so under specific conditions. In August 1998, the Journal of Bacteriology published an article on the ability of E coli to convert citrate to acetate and succinate under anoxic conditions (the absence of oxygen) when an oxidizable cosubstrate like glucose is present. In other words, if sugar is present and oxygen isn't, E coli does have the capacity to "eat" citrate.
Discovering exactly what happened to "up" this ability is up to Dr. Lenski's team. He has samples of E coli populations from thousands of generations over the years, and he can pinpoint the specific changes that led to make E coli's already existing citrate carrier expand its horizons.
We just find it interesting that these citrate-munching E coli have also lost a lot of their ability to eat glucose, their normal food.
Evolutionists argue that evolutionary change doesn't always have to be a drive upward. They say that evolutionary change can offer benefits at the same time as losing other useful functions. That's fine. Except that we never see any examples of truly upward "change." If there is a new or improved ability in an organism, we find that it was always tucked away there in the genetic code. Otherwise, "new" traits tend to come with a loss of information, a loss of function, a mistake, an error that might temporarily offer some benefit to the creature at hand, but in the long run harms it. The man with no esophagus will have a hard time getting sick from a foodborne illness, but few people will argue that living by feeding tube is a long-term beneficial "adaption." Evolutionists keep trying to argue that similar losses or defects offer beneficial adaption, but all we see in these mutations is net deterioration.
In all this, we find that bacteria are still bacteria. They are not developing new organelles that were not previously present. For good or bad, fully functioning or not, they just continue to behave like bacteria. We say, aside from thousands of years of genetic weakening, they are still doing what God designed them to do.
• Bacteria Make Major Evolutionary Shift In The Lab - New Scientist
• The Escherichia coli Citrate Carrier CitT - Journal of Bacteriology
• Is Bacterial Resistance to Antibiotics an Appropriate Example of Evolutionary Change? - Creation Research Society Quarterly
• SuperBugs Not Super After All - Creation.com
The Illusion Of The Cladogram....
Posted on 2009.12.03 at 14:04Current Location: Illinois
Current Mood:
cheerful
Most of modern scientists assume that all life today evolved from single-celled organisms over the past several billion years. Since that assumption is pretty settled for the majority, biologists don’t bother questioning it. Instead, they assume it to be true, and spend time trying to figure out the evolutionary relationships of animals. What is the nearest common ancestor of both the frog and the newt? What are the ancestors of modern birds and how did they gain the ability to fly? How is this animal related to that animal, and where do they both fit in the evolutionary family tree?
Enter cladograms. A cladogram is simply a branched, tree-like diagram that is used to put evolutionary relationships in order [see links below]. Plants or animals are arranged along the branches according to the order in which they evolved from common ancestors. Cladograms can be useful in sorting out closely related creatures….provided there actually is a relationship.
The study of cladistics is based on the concept that animals with similar structures and body parts are related. All vertebrates have a backbone, therefore evolutionists assume they all descended from a common ancestor with a backbone. Organisms are placed onto different branches based on similar characteristics, called "characters." Characters might include number of toes or number of sacral vertebrae. They might be, "has a jaw" or "chisel-like teeth". Characters can get very specific, like "Bifurcated neural spine in cervical vertebrae." The more similar characteristics different organisms have, the more closely they are considered related.
It would be nice for evolutionary theory if the taxa being placed on a cladogram lined up nice and neatly, step-by-step. But, that’s often not the case. Let’s say organisms A B and C are being ordered on the cladogram based on four different characters. If A had characters #1 and #2, B had characters #1, #2, and #3, and Organism C had characters #1, #2, #3, and, #4, it would be reasonable to say that C evolved from B, and B evolved from A in neat and tidy single-transition steps.
Organism Character 1 #2 #3 #4
A Yes Yes No No
B Yes Yes Yes No
C Yes Yes Yes Yes
In real life, cladograms are not so simple. What if organism A has characters #1, #2, and #3, B has characters #1, #3, and #4, and C has #2 and #4? Which organism came first? Which came second?
Organism Character 1 #2 #3 #4
A Yes Yes Yes No
B Yes No Yes Yes
C No Yes No Yes
If A is presumed to be the oldest organism of the three, then a significant bit of wriggling has to be done to demonstrate an evolutionary relationship; C has to lose characters 1# and #3, B has to lose character #2, and B and C both need a hypothetical transitional ancestor who possesses character #4. If you make C the oldest organism of the group, you have the same kinds of problems. Any way you work it, at least one organism has to lose a character and gain another for them to have been connected in the evolutionary past.
The loss or gain of characters is called a "transition." In making a cladogram, all the possible arrangements are worked out, and the arrangement with the fewest total transitions is called "parsimonious."
Cladograms are an excellent tool for categorizing organisms according to shared and unshared characteristics. They cannot prove evolution, though, for several reasons:
1. Cladograms are notably free of true transitional forms. They are full of organisms with alleged common ancestors, but those common ancestors are never available for examination. In his article "Creationists Are 'Liars' (?)", Tas Walker analyzes a cladogram by Kevin Padian, and points out: the serious dearth of true transitional forms available for the diagram (after 150 years of looking for them.):
"So, does this diagram demonstrate that evolution is a fact as Padian claims? Let's look at the evidence. Is there evidence for the animals shown on the tips of the cladogram? Yes, lots of it. We have many examples of ray-finned fish, lungfish and living tetrapods. And we have fossil evidence of the other animals shown, such as tiktaalik. So the evidence exists and it is at the tips of the cladogram, or the tips of the bush.
"Do we have evidence of the common ancestors that are indicated by the intersection of the lines on the cladogram? For example, do we have evidence of the common ancestor that gave rise to the living tetrapods and fossil tulerpeton, as required by the intersection of their lines? No, we don’t. What about where the other lines intersect, do we have examples of those common ancestors? No, we have none at all."
Walter ReMine notes something similar in his book The Biotic Message:
"Illusion is created with tree-structured imagery, such as cladograms and phenograms. These are said to be evidence for evolution, but they do not identify a single ancestor-descendant relationship."
Evolutionists will say that certain characters are more prone to rapid evolutionary change - change that hasn't been preserved in the fossil record, or are prone to converge with unrelated lineages, or have simply not yet been found just yet. The reality is that these scientists are still making up reasons for why they don’t have all the transitional forms they'd hoped for.
2. Cladograms give the illusion of relationship without any real evidence. While evolutionists seek to find the most "parsimonious" path of evolution when constructing a cladogram, they are still choosing which characters to compare – and therefore are placing organisms in a specific order on the diagram - according to their opinions. Four cladograms constructed by four different scientists can give four different results.
In Padian’s cladogram on the origin of tetrapods, he shows the number of digits on the limbs of organisms in the lineup drop from 8 digits to 7 digits to 6 digits. If one just read that on paper, it could sound convincing. Yet a good look at the actual limbs that those 8,7, and 6 digits belong to show three very different skeletal structures. The humerus bones of the creatures get fat, then thin, then fat again. The radius and ulna bones go from relatively small, to large, then back to small and thin again. There are other ways in which these animals could be logically arranged.
(That these bones even have the names "humerus" or "radius" and "ulna" is a human decision, an effort to find similarities between all vertebrates. The massive differences between the creatures, like the fact that the "distal elements" of the various organisms are all quite distinct from each other, doesn’t seem to bother Padian.)
3. It’s nigh impossible to falsify a cladogram, because reversals are allowed. One organism in the order can gain a character, the next can lose it, and the next one can pick up that character again in order to make the cladogram "work". As John Jackson points out, "Lineages of animals have a way of evolving a feature, then removing it, and then re-evolving it again..."
Evolutionists who accept evolution as a fact a priori may not have a problem with reversals, because they believe that evolution is a driving force in nature. But for anybody skeptical of Darwinian evolution’s ability to produce brand new characters in the first place, reversals present a massive problem. To insist that the same character has evolved independently in different creatures, not just once but twice or three times, comes off as absolutely ludicrous. And since it can’t be proven by the fossil record, there is no legitimate scientific reason to accept it.
Cladograms can be a useful tool in categorizing animals, especially those that are truly closely related. The genetic code obviously allows plenty of variability for the adaption of plants and animals to different environments. However, cladograms only prove "macro" evolutionary relationships to those who already believe that organisms are all ultimately related. If one believes that the similarities between different plant and animal groups are due to specific engineering by a great Designer, then cladograms don't prove anything.
Related Links:
• Padian's Cladogram On The Origin Of Tetrapods - GeoTimes
• Creationists Are 'Liars' (?) - Creation.com
• Does A 'Transitional Form' Replace One Gap With Two Gaps? - The Journal Of Creation
• What Is Cladistics? - Mike Taylor
• Birds of a Feather - Science Against Evolution
Enter cladograms. A cladogram is simply a branched, tree-like diagram that is used to put evolutionary relationships in order [see links below]. Plants or animals are arranged along the branches according to the order in which they evolved from common ancestors. Cladograms can be useful in sorting out closely related creatures….provided there actually is a relationship.
The study of cladistics is based on the concept that animals with similar structures and body parts are related. All vertebrates have a backbone, therefore evolutionists assume they all descended from a common ancestor with a backbone. Organisms are placed onto different branches based on similar characteristics, called "characters." Characters might include number of toes or number of sacral vertebrae. They might be, "has a jaw" or "chisel-like teeth". Characters can get very specific, like "Bifurcated neural spine in cervical vertebrae." The more similar characteristics different organisms have, the more closely they are considered related.
It would be nice for evolutionary theory if the taxa being placed on a cladogram lined up nice and neatly, step-by-step. But, that’s often not the case. Let’s say organisms A B and C are being ordered on the cladogram based on four different characters. If A had characters #1 and #2, B had characters #1, #2, and #3, and Organism C had characters #1, #2, #3, and, #4, it would be reasonable to say that C evolved from B, and B evolved from A in neat and tidy single-transition steps.
Organism Character 1 #2 #3 #4
A Yes Yes No No
B Yes Yes Yes No
C Yes Yes Yes Yes
In real life, cladograms are not so simple. What if organism A has characters #1, #2, and #3, B has characters #1, #3, and #4, and C has #2 and #4? Which organism came first? Which came second?
Organism Character 1 #2 #3 #4
A Yes Yes Yes No
B Yes No Yes Yes
C No Yes No Yes
If A is presumed to be the oldest organism of the three, then a significant bit of wriggling has to be done to demonstrate an evolutionary relationship; C has to lose characters 1# and #3, B has to lose character #2, and B and C both need a hypothetical transitional ancestor who possesses character #4. If you make C the oldest organism of the group, you have the same kinds of problems. Any way you work it, at least one organism has to lose a character and gain another for them to have been connected in the evolutionary past.
The loss or gain of characters is called a "transition." In making a cladogram, all the possible arrangements are worked out, and the arrangement with the fewest total transitions is called "parsimonious."
Cladograms are an excellent tool for categorizing organisms according to shared and unshared characteristics. They cannot prove evolution, though, for several reasons:
1. Cladograms are notably free of true transitional forms. They are full of organisms with alleged common ancestors, but those common ancestors are never available for examination. In his article "Creationists Are 'Liars' (?)", Tas Walker analyzes a cladogram by Kevin Padian, and points out: the serious dearth of true transitional forms available for the diagram (after 150 years of looking for them.):
"So, does this diagram demonstrate that evolution is a fact as Padian claims? Let's look at the evidence. Is there evidence for the animals shown on the tips of the cladogram? Yes, lots of it. We have many examples of ray-finned fish, lungfish and living tetrapods. And we have fossil evidence of the other animals shown, such as tiktaalik. So the evidence exists and it is at the tips of the cladogram, or the tips of the bush.
"Do we have evidence of the common ancestors that are indicated by the intersection of the lines on the cladogram? For example, do we have evidence of the common ancestor that gave rise to the living tetrapods and fossil tulerpeton, as required by the intersection of their lines? No, we don’t. What about where the other lines intersect, do we have examples of those common ancestors? No, we have none at all."
Walter ReMine notes something similar in his book The Biotic Message:
"Illusion is created with tree-structured imagery, such as cladograms and phenograms. These are said to be evidence for evolution, but they do not identify a single ancestor-descendant relationship."
Evolutionists will say that certain characters are more prone to rapid evolutionary change - change that hasn't been preserved in the fossil record, or are prone to converge with unrelated lineages, or have simply not yet been found just yet. The reality is that these scientists are still making up reasons for why they don’t have all the transitional forms they'd hoped for.
2. Cladograms give the illusion of relationship without any real evidence. While evolutionists seek to find the most "parsimonious" path of evolution when constructing a cladogram, they are still choosing which characters to compare – and therefore are placing organisms in a specific order on the diagram - according to their opinions. Four cladograms constructed by four different scientists can give four different results.
In Padian’s cladogram on the origin of tetrapods, he shows the number of digits on the limbs of organisms in the lineup drop from 8 digits to 7 digits to 6 digits. If one just read that on paper, it could sound convincing. Yet a good look at the actual limbs that those 8,7, and 6 digits belong to show three very different skeletal structures. The humerus bones of the creatures get fat, then thin, then fat again. The radius and ulna bones go from relatively small, to large, then back to small and thin again. There are other ways in which these animals could be logically arranged.
(That these bones even have the names "humerus" or "radius" and "ulna" is a human decision, an effort to find similarities between all vertebrates. The massive differences between the creatures, like the fact that the "distal elements" of the various organisms are all quite distinct from each other, doesn’t seem to bother Padian.)
3. It’s nigh impossible to falsify a cladogram, because reversals are allowed. One organism in the order can gain a character, the next can lose it, and the next one can pick up that character again in order to make the cladogram "work". As John Jackson points out, "Lineages of animals have a way of evolving a feature, then removing it, and then re-evolving it again..."
Evolutionists who accept evolution as a fact a priori may not have a problem with reversals, because they believe that evolution is a driving force in nature. But for anybody skeptical of Darwinian evolution’s ability to produce brand new characters in the first place, reversals present a massive problem. To insist that the same character has evolved independently in different creatures, not just once but twice or three times, comes off as absolutely ludicrous. And since it can’t be proven by the fossil record, there is no legitimate scientific reason to accept it.
Cladograms can be a useful tool in categorizing animals, especially those that are truly closely related. The genetic code obviously allows plenty of variability for the adaption of plants and animals to different environments. However, cladograms only prove "macro" evolutionary relationships to those who already believe that organisms are all ultimately related. If one believes that the similarities between different plant and animal groups are due to specific engineering by a great Designer, then cladograms don't prove anything.
Related Links:
• Padian's Cladogram On The Origin Of Tetrapods - GeoTimes
• Creationists Are 'Liars' (?) - Creation.com
• Does A 'Transitional Form' Replace One Gap With Two Gaps? - The Journal Of Creation
• What Is Cladistics? - Mike Taylor
• Birds of a Feather - Science Against Evolution
Forgotten Histroy: Continental Congress of 1777
Posted on 2009.11.28 at 09:28Current Location: Illinois
Current Mood:
thankful
The committee appointed to prepare a recommendation to the several states, to set apart a day of public thanksgiving, brought in a report, which was taken into consideration, and agreed to as follows:
Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received, and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased Him in his abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure to prosper the means used for the support of our troops and to crown our arms with most signal success:
It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the 18th day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please Him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings, independence and peace; that it may please Him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
And it is further recommended, that servile labor, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.
Forasmuch as it is the indispensable duty of all men to adore the superintending providence of Almighty God; to acknowledge with gratitude their obligation to Him for benefits received, and to implore such farther blessings as they stand in need of; and it having pleased Him in his abundant mercy not only to continue to us the innumerable bounties of his common providence, but also smile upon us in the prosecution of a just and necessary war, for the defense and establishment of our unalienable rights and liberties; particularly in that he hath been pleased in so great a measure to prosper the means used for the support of our troops and to crown our arms with most signal success:
It is therefore recommended to the legislative or executive powers of these United States, to set apart Thursday, the 18th day of December next, for solemn thanksgiving and praise; that with one heart and one voice the good people may express the grateful feelings of their hearts, and consecrate themselves to the service of their divine benefactor; and that together with their sincere acknowledgments and offerings, they may join the penitent confession of their manifold sins, whereby they had forfeited every favor, and their humble and earnest supplication that it may please God, through the merits of Jesus Christ, mercifully to forgive and blot them out of remembrance; that it may please Him graciously to afford his blessings on the governments of these states respectively, and prosper the public council of the whole; to inspire our commanders both by land and sea, and all under them, with that wisdom and fortitude which may render them fit instruments, under the providence of Almighty God, to secure for these United States the greatest of all blessings, independence and peace; that it may please Him to prosper the trade and manufactures of the people and the labor of the husbandman, that our land may yield its increase; to take schools and seminaries of education, so necessary for cultivating the principles of true liberty, virtue and piety, under his nurturing hand, and to prosper the means of religion for the promotion and enlargement of that kingdom which consisteth in righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.
And it is further recommended, that servile labor, and such recreation as, though at other times innocent, may be unbecoming the purpose of this appointment, be omitted on so solemn an occasion.
What Is Evolution? Reviewing The Terms.....
Posted on 2009.11.28 at 09:18Current Location: Illinois
Current Mood: =)
Darwin's Origin of Species celebrates its 150th birthday on Tuesday, November 24, 2009, and during those 150 years Darwin's ideas have come to dominate scientific disciplines from biology to archeology to sociology and everything in between. Biologists like to claim that evolution has been proven absolutely, with no question about it among reputable scientists. Scientists may quibble about the specifics of evolution, they say, but not about the fact of it.
There are indeed a growing number of professional scientists who disagree that the evidence points to molecules-to-man evolution. Whether those scientists are "reputable" is not at issue; in today's scientific community, having the audacity to question Darwin can in itself quickly tarnish the reputation of a formerly respected scientist. The fact is, men and women who know their stuff can disagree about the ability of existing evidence, paired with Darwinian ideas, to sufficiently explain the formation of life as we know it. These scientists come from all manner of religious backgrounds, including agnostics who claim no religion at all.
During the next several weeks, we are going to diligently and carefully address some major issues in the evolution debate, things like transitional forms and the reliability of cladistic analysis, radiometric dating, the fossil record, bacteria, and potentially more. To begin our series on evolution, though, we need to start with a return to the definition of "evolution." We've run this article in the past, but a review is necessary before we take this further, especially for new readers. In the following weeks, God willing, we can go on to fascinating topics that are of interest to science lovers everywhere.
There are a number of different concepts that can be used when talking about evolution. Unfortunately, many people do not stop to define the terms they are using when getting into discussions on evolution. Because of this, students of science can easily misunderstand one another. Below are some general terms often involved in discussions about evolutionary theory, and sorting these out can help one keep definitions straight when discussing origins.
Change over time: The most basic definition of evolution is simply "the process of change or development over a period of time." Hence, music, cultures, sports teams all "evolve." In biology, classes of animals and plants have experienced marked change over dozens or hundreds or thousands of years. At one time, beavers were as big as today's bears, and ancient ground sloths once grew to be the size of oxen. Little three-toed horses and small camels roamed what is now Texas. Over time, groups of animals diversify, as shown by the fossil record and common observation. This definition is extremely broad, and says nothing about what caused the change or where the beavers or sloths came from in the first place.
Descent with Modification: This term that Darwin used basically means that living creatures have the ability to create offspring like themselves, but with the potential for variation. Today, descent with modification is explained through the field of genetics and studies involving DNA. Through the building-plan code of DNA, creatures can produce offspring like themselves, yet with room for variation. Brown-eyed parents who have recessive gene coding for blue eyes can produce blue-eyed children. Cats can give birth to kittens with a range of characteristics, all in one litter, depending on the specific DNA coding passed on to each kitten by its mother and its father.
Adaptation: Sometimes an offspring receives certain traits or characteristics from its parents that allow it to survive in certain situations better than in others. Large-beaked finches adapt better to eating hard, large seeds, because their beaks are strong enough to crush them. Finches with long, thin beaks adapt better to getting food out of hard-to-reach places. Finches with large beaks will do better in one environment and will flourish there, while others with long beaks will flourish in other environments.
Survival of the Fittest: This basic concept promoted by Darwin argues that those organisms that are best able to adapt to a particular environment will live to produce more offspring. For instance, when there is plenty of food, all the finches on an island can do well. However, during times of drought, only the finches with the strongest beaks will be able to eat the hardest seeds, enabling them to survive and reproduce. If other finches with longer, thinner beaks can get seeds from places the rest of the finches can't, these will survive and reproduce. The other finches that can't compete for the food supply will die out. Soon, the "specialized" finches are reproducing more "specialized" offspring like themselves, so that obvious variations start showing up between the different groups of finches.
Natural Selection: Adaptation and Survival of the Fittest work together to create success among certain groups of creatures with certain genetic variations. "Nature" selects which ones survive based on which ones are best adapted to their environment and best able to overcome the competition. Natural Selection includes both ecological selection (overcoming competition for food, safety, shelter) and sexual selection (which guy gets the girl).
Genetic Drift: This refers to the way small populations of creatures end up reproducing and passing on their genetic information and becoming specialized even if they are not the best adapted to an environment. If all the competition got killed by a lightening storm or flood or avalanche, those left behind would continue to reproduce and survive, whether or not they were the best suited to survive otherwise.
Most of the above concepts can be seen regularly in nature and are largely beyond dispute. However, the following ideas start creating heavy debate:
Speciation: This term refers to the formation of new "species" over time, generally through the mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the fittest. When many people talk about "evolution" they often mean "speciation," arguing that through natural selection, entirely new species have been formed.
Whether this can be proven actually depends on the definition of the term "species" (and there is still a great deal of arguing among scientists over that one). Usually, a species is considered to be a group whose members only reproduce with each other. Finches may become so specialized that they no longer mate with other kinds of finches. These can be considered a new "species" of finch.
Yet, evolutionists often extrapolate to argue that through these processes thousands or millions of years ago, finches evolved from some more generic form of bird, which evolved from some more generic form of vertebrate. The line should be drawn at the DNA evidence. What does the DNA allow for? How much genetic variation was originally available in the DNA of the earliest finches, and how can we determine it? Natural Selection can only work with the DNA code already present, and cannot create new DNA coding that did not previously exist. The specialized finches are still finches and are not turning into some other kind of bird.
Mutation: To deal with this obvious problem of DNA coding, some evolutionary scientists have argued that through small mutations, new information can be added to the genetic code.
However, there is much debate over this issue. Mutations are naturally destructive and cause damage, and evolutionary scientists have been hard pressed to find beneficial mutations. On rare occasion, a mutation can help a creature survive when it would otherwise not be able to, but only because the mutation has caused a malfunction. For instance, children with sickle-cell anemia are more resistant to malaria, but this is because their red blood cells are not functioning properly, (and large numbers still die from the sickle-cell anemia). Many "super bugs" in hospitals are immune to antibiotics because they are actually mutated, sickly bacteria and can't function properly to take in the antibiotics. When put in competition with normal bacteria outside of a hospital setting, these "super bugs" can die off quickly.
The General Theory of Evolution: This is the popular but controversial idea that all life on earth started in a primordial soup, and that all the variation of life on earth arose through gradual evolution by way of mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest.
This is where the heavy argumentation over "evolution" is often focused. The general theory that all life on earth evolved from primordial microbes is based on philosophical beliefs about the nature of nature, on models, on extrapolations, and on guesswork – because it deals with theories about things that cannot be directly observed or reproduced. The best scientists can do is create models and work to fit the observable evidence to their models. In this sense, evolutionary theory is absolutely a work in progress.
While many concepts in "evolutionary" science are useful in understanding genetics and the variations between species, it is important to recognize where observation ends, and where extrapolation and theorizing begin. Those in the information sciences recognize the vital importance of focusing on information and the genetic code and of determining where the DNA code originated in the first place. Without a mechanism for adding information to the genetic code, natural selection and adaptation can only produce more specialized finches or dogs or horses, but they cannot tell us how finch or dog or horse DNA was programmed in the first place.
To be continued...
Related Links:
• Genetic Engineers Unwind Species Barrier - Creation.com
• Definitions of 'Evolution' - SIU Department of Zoology
• Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting The Theory Of Intelligent Design - The Discovery Institute
• November 30th ID v. Evolution Debate - Beverly Hills - The Discovery Institute
• Studies On Creation and Evolution - Koinonia House
There are indeed a growing number of professional scientists who disagree that the evidence points to molecules-to-man evolution. Whether those scientists are "reputable" is not at issue; in today's scientific community, having the audacity to question Darwin can in itself quickly tarnish the reputation of a formerly respected scientist. The fact is, men and women who know their stuff can disagree about the ability of existing evidence, paired with Darwinian ideas, to sufficiently explain the formation of life as we know it. These scientists come from all manner of religious backgrounds, including agnostics who claim no religion at all.
During the next several weeks, we are going to diligently and carefully address some major issues in the evolution debate, things like transitional forms and the reliability of cladistic analysis, radiometric dating, the fossil record, bacteria, and potentially more. To begin our series on evolution, though, we need to start with a return to the definition of "evolution." We've run this article in the past, but a review is necessary before we take this further, especially for new readers. In the following weeks, God willing, we can go on to fascinating topics that are of interest to science lovers everywhere.
There are a number of different concepts that can be used when talking about evolution. Unfortunately, many people do not stop to define the terms they are using when getting into discussions on evolution. Because of this, students of science can easily misunderstand one another. Below are some general terms often involved in discussions about evolutionary theory, and sorting these out can help one keep definitions straight when discussing origins.
Change over time: The most basic definition of evolution is simply "the process of change or development over a period of time." Hence, music, cultures, sports teams all "evolve." In biology, classes of animals and plants have experienced marked change over dozens or hundreds or thousands of years. At one time, beavers were as big as today's bears, and ancient ground sloths once grew to be the size of oxen. Little three-toed horses and small camels roamed what is now Texas. Over time, groups of animals diversify, as shown by the fossil record and common observation. This definition is extremely broad, and says nothing about what caused the change or where the beavers or sloths came from in the first place.
Descent with Modification: This term that Darwin used basically means that living creatures have the ability to create offspring like themselves, but with the potential for variation. Today, descent with modification is explained through the field of genetics and studies involving DNA. Through the building-plan code of DNA, creatures can produce offspring like themselves, yet with room for variation. Brown-eyed parents who have recessive gene coding for blue eyes can produce blue-eyed children. Cats can give birth to kittens with a range of characteristics, all in one litter, depending on the specific DNA coding passed on to each kitten by its mother and its father.
Adaptation: Sometimes an offspring receives certain traits or characteristics from its parents that allow it to survive in certain situations better than in others. Large-beaked finches adapt better to eating hard, large seeds, because their beaks are strong enough to crush them. Finches with long, thin beaks adapt better to getting food out of hard-to-reach places. Finches with large beaks will do better in one environment and will flourish there, while others with long beaks will flourish in other environments.
Survival of the Fittest: This basic concept promoted by Darwin argues that those organisms that are best able to adapt to a particular environment will live to produce more offspring. For instance, when there is plenty of food, all the finches on an island can do well. However, during times of drought, only the finches with the strongest beaks will be able to eat the hardest seeds, enabling them to survive and reproduce. If other finches with longer, thinner beaks can get seeds from places the rest of the finches can't, these will survive and reproduce. The other finches that can't compete for the food supply will die out. Soon, the "specialized" finches are reproducing more "specialized" offspring like themselves, so that obvious variations start showing up between the different groups of finches.
Natural Selection: Adaptation and Survival of the Fittest work together to create success among certain groups of creatures with certain genetic variations. "Nature" selects which ones survive based on which ones are best adapted to their environment and best able to overcome the competition. Natural Selection includes both ecological selection (overcoming competition for food, safety, shelter) and sexual selection (which guy gets the girl).
Genetic Drift: This refers to the way small populations of creatures end up reproducing and passing on their genetic information and becoming specialized even if they are not the best adapted to an environment. If all the competition got killed by a lightening storm or flood or avalanche, those left behind would continue to reproduce and survive, whether or not they were the best suited to survive otherwise.
Most of the above concepts can be seen regularly in nature and are largely beyond dispute. However, the following ideas start creating heavy debate:
Speciation: This term refers to the formation of new "species" over time, generally through the mechanisms of natural selection and survival of the fittest. When many people talk about "evolution" they often mean "speciation," arguing that through natural selection, entirely new species have been formed.
Whether this can be proven actually depends on the definition of the term "species" (and there is still a great deal of arguing among scientists over that one). Usually, a species is considered to be a group whose members only reproduce with each other. Finches may become so specialized that they no longer mate with other kinds of finches. These can be considered a new "species" of finch.
Yet, evolutionists often extrapolate to argue that through these processes thousands or millions of years ago, finches evolved from some more generic form of bird, which evolved from some more generic form of vertebrate. The line should be drawn at the DNA evidence. What does the DNA allow for? How much genetic variation was originally available in the DNA of the earliest finches, and how can we determine it? Natural Selection can only work with the DNA code already present, and cannot create new DNA coding that did not previously exist. The specialized finches are still finches and are not turning into some other kind of bird.
Mutation: To deal with this obvious problem of DNA coding, some evolutionary scientists have argued that through small mutations, new information can be added to the genetic code.
However, there is much debate over this issue. Mutations are naturally destructive and cause damage, and evolutionary scientists have been hard pressed to find beneficial mutations. On rare occasion, a mutation can help a creature survive when it would otherwise not be able to, but only because the mutation has caused a malfunction. For instance, children with sickle-cell anemia are more resistant to malaria, but this is because their red blood cells are not functioning properly, (and large numbers still die from the sickle-cell anemia). Many "super bugs" in hospitals are immune to antibiotics because they are actually mutated, sickly bacteria and can't function properly to take in the antibiotics. When put in competition with normal bacteria outside of a hospital setting, these "super bugs" can die off quickly.
The General Theory of Evolution: This is the popular but controversial idea that all life on earth started in a primordial soup, and that all the variation of life on earth arose through gradual evolution by way of mutation, adaptation, and survival of the fittest.
This is where the heavy argumentation over "evolution" is often focused. The general theory that all life on earth evolved from primordial microbes is based on philosophical beliefs about the nature of nature, on models, on extrapolations, and on guesswork – because it deals with theories about things that cannot be directly observed or reproduced. The best scientists can do is create models and work to fit the observable evidence to their models. In this sense, evolutionary theory is absolutely a work in progress.
While many concepts in "evolutionary" science are useful in understanding genetics and the variations between species, it is important to recognize where observation ends, and where extrapolation and theorizing begin. Those in the information sciences recognize the vital importance of focusing on information and the genetic code and of determining where the DNA code originated in the first place. Without a mechanism for adding information to the genetic code, natural selection and adaptation can only produce more specialized finches or dogs or horses, but they cannot tell us how finch or dog or horse DNA was programmed in the first place.
To be continued...
Related Links:
• Genetic Engineers Unwind Species Barrier - Creation.com
• Definitions of 'Evolution' - SIU Department of Zoology
• Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting The Theory Of Intelligent Design - The Discovery Institute
• November 30th ID v. Evolution Debate - Beverly Hills - The Discovery Institute
• Studies On Creation and Evolution - Koinonia House
The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution......
Posted on 2009.10.29 at 11:01Current Location: Ill
Current Mood:
excited
The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution
November 9, 2009 9:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. St. Pius V University (Rome)
In Response to Pope Benedict XVI’s Call for Both Sides to be Heard
The 150th anniversary of Darwin’s "Origin of the Species" in November 2009 will be the occasion for a unique conference at Pope Pius V University in Rome presenting a scientific refutation of evolution theory. According to Russian sedimentologist Alexander Lalamov, “Everything contained in Darwin’s Origin of Species depends upon rocks forming slowly over enormous periods of time. The November conference demonstrates with empirical data that such geological time is not available for evolution.” Recently returned from a ground-breaking geological conference in Kazan, sedimentologist Guy Berthault will present the findings of several sedimentological studies conducted and published in Russia. In one of these, the age of the rock formation surveyed was found to be 0.01% of the age attributed to it by the geological time-scale—instead of an age of 10 million years, the actual age was no more than 10 thousand years. “Contrary to the conventional wisdom,” Lalamov observed, “these rocks formed quickly, and the fossils they contain must be relatively young. This finding contradicts the evolutionary interpretation of the fossil record.” www.sedimentology.fr
According to US biophysicist Dr. Dean Kenyon, “Biological macroevolution collapses without the twin pillars of the geological time-scale and the fossil record as currently interpreted. Few scientists would contest this statement. This is why the upcoming conference concentrates on geology and paleontology. Recent research in these two disciplines adds powerful support to the already formidable case against teaching Darwinian macroevolution as if it were proven fact.”
Participating scientists include:
--Guy Berthault, a renowned sedimentologist from France and experimenter in fundamental physics and sedimentology, member of the French Geological Society and the Association of Sedimentologists.
--Maciej Giertych, a population geneticist from Kornik, Poland, who holds advanced degrees in genetics, forestry and tree physiology.
--Thomas Seiler, a physicist from Germany with a Ph.D. in physics from the University of Munich
--Jean de Pontcharra, a physicist in France and director of the renowned research group CEA-LETI (Commissariat à l'Energie Atomique, Laboratoire d'Electronique et de Technologie de l'Informatique).
--Josef Holzschuh, a geophysicist from Australia with a Ph.D. in geophysics from the University of Western Australia.
Abstracts of the presentations can be seen on-line at http://sites.google.com/site/scientificc
“The Scientific Impossibility of Evolution” conference is being held in direct response to Benedict XIV's request that both sides of the evolution controversy be heard. Thomas Seiler, a participant in the conference said: “In the light of astounding new scientific breakthroughs, particularly in geology, we hope the worldwide scientific community will acknowledge the overwhelming evidence against the theory of evolution.”
The conference begins at 9:30 a.m. on November 9 in the auditorium of St. Pius V University (Via Cristoforo Colombo, No. 200). Entrance is free although the number of seats is limited. It is open to the public and members of the press and media, but reservations are recommended. Reservations can be made by email at noevolutioninfo@gmail.com; or Peter Wilders (Europe phone 377 93 50 88 34)
Trompe l'oeil artist.....
Posted on 2009.10.28 at 11:51Current Location: Ill
Current Mood:
impressed
http://damncoolpics.blogspot.com/2009/05/m
Squid Fossils, Ancient DNA.....
Posted on 2009.10.01 at 12:42Current Location: Ill
Current Mood:
amused
Squid Fossils, Ancient DNA, and a Young Earth
by Frank Sherwin, M.A.*
The field of biology has provided much support for a recent creation, and physical evidence of very young-looking biological materials from supposedly ancient fossils continues to accrue from around the world, and from various depths under the earth.
In August of this year, paleontologists in Trowbridge, Wiltshire, England, made a discovery that astounded the evolutionary community. A "150 million-year-old" squid was discovered with an intact ink sac. "It is difficult to imagine how you can have something as soft and sloppy as an ink sac…inside a rock that is 150 million years old," said Dr. Phil Wilby of the British Geological Survey.1 Creationists agree and see this as physical evidence that clearly points to its recent burial and preservation.
"Living fossils" present another kind of dilemma for deep time. Sharks, horseshoe crabs, crinoids, Wollemi pine trees, tuataras, crocodiles, vampire squids, chambered nautiloids, brachiopods, clams, dragonflies, lungfish, and hundreds of other animals and plants have stayed the same over "millions of years," despite significant shifts in their environments and supposed eons of nature-selecting mutations. But living fossils make better sense when viewed from a young-earth creation perspective, wherein natural selection does not generate new forms, and living creatures ought to look similar to their fossilized relatives.
In the past few decades, Darwin-unfriendly discoveries have been made of genetic material (DNA) that is supposedly from very old sources but is found in relatively pristine condition. For example, evolutionist Sangtae Kim discovered DNA sequences from Miocene fossils (supposedly over 5 million years old) and said, "This paper confirms that DNA sequences can be obtained from Miocene-age plant remains."2 And "plants, bacteria, mammals, Neanderthals, and other archaic humans have had short aDNA [ancient DNA] sequences identified."3 How can DNA be so intact after so long, with what is known about DNA decay rates?4, 5
Other samples of viable DNA have been extracted from frozen tissue dated thousands of years old by evolutionists. The energy powerhouse of the cell is called the mitochondria and it contains DNA termed mtDNA. In 2008, samples of mtDNA were extracted from a frozen human discovered in the Alps in 1991. Called the Tyrolean Iceman, he was dated at over 5,000 years old. The DNA was completely and successfully sequenced.6
Speaking of cold temperatures, deep ice cores have been taken from southern Greenland permafrost. Insect and plant materials recovered from them have revealed clean DNA sequences.7 Antarctic ice cores may reveal more DNA samples.
Not only is DNA found where it should not be if evolutionary ages are true, but still-living microbes have been extracted from ancient earth materials. A leader in this fascinating field is evolutionist Raul Cano of the California Polytechnic State University. His work frustrates evolutionary biologists, who maintain that the earth is very old, and therefore consider that his otherwise astonishing results are actually contaminated with recent bacteria. However, other evolutionists have been making similar discoveries.8
It would seem that many scientists are putting the cart before the horse--embracing long ages before they consider the physical evidence that shows otherwise.9 Pristine DNA from these supposedly ancient materials is predicted by the creation model, which numbers the earth's years in the thousands rather than millions.
References
- Ink found in Jurassic-era squid. BBC News. Posted on news.bbc.co.uk August 19, 2009, accessed August 19, 2009.
- Kim, S. et al. 2004. DNA sequences from Miocene fossils: An ndhF sequence of Magnolia latahensis (Magnoliaceae) and an rbcL sequence of Persea pseudocarolinensis (Lauraceae). American Journal of Botany. 91 (4): 615–620.
- Criswell, D. 2006. How Soon Will Jurassic Park Open? Acts & Facts. 35 (6).
- Poinar, H. et al. 1996. Amino Acid Racemization and the Preservation of Ancient DNA. Science. 272 (5263): 864-866.
- Willerslev, E. and A. Cooper. 2006. Pathogenic microbial ancient DNA: a problem or an opportunity? Proceedings of the Royal Society. 273 (1587): 643.
- Ermini, L. et al. 2008. Complete Mitochondrial Genome Sequence of the Tyrolean Iceman. Current Biology. 18 (21) 1687-1693.
- Willerslev, E. et al. 2007. Ancient Biomolecules from Deep Ice Cores Reveal a Forested Southern Greenland. Science. 317 (5834): 111-114.
- Vreeland, R. H., W. D. Rosenzweig and D. W. Powers. 2000. Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal. Nature. 407 (6806): 897-900.
- One example of this was documented in Yeoman, B. Schweitzer's Dangerous Discovery. Discover, April 2006
* Mr. Sherwin is Senior Science Lecturer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Sherwin, F. 2009. Squid Fossils, Ancient DNA, and a Young Earth. Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 16.
Dinosaur Protein Sequences....
Posted on 2009.10.01 at 12:39Current Location: Ill
Current Mood:
cheerful
Dinosaur Protein Sequences and the Dino-to-Bird Model
by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
Evolutionists have maintained that the fossil record supports a long-ages history for earth, but material extracted from dinosaur bones is providing an interesting challenge to that theory. The recent discoveries of soft dinosaur tissues, defined cell matrices, elastic blood vessels, and clearly observable cell microstructures such as cell nuclei have been a source of both shock and excitement to the paleontology community.
The shock comes from the fact that degradative processes somehow did not completely destroy all evidence of tissue from the supposedly millions-of-years-old fossils. The excitement comes from the fact that, given the pristine state of these tissues, scientists should be able to extract macromolecules. These would then be used in studies of molecular evolution to bolster the evolutionary ideas that are competing for supremacy in the scientific community, such as the currently touted "dinosaur to bird" transition model.
In fact, soft tissues from the bones of a Tyrannosaurus rex and a Brachylophosaurus canadensis (duck-billed hadrosaur) did yield protein fragments that were subjected to amino acid sequence analysis and then used in theoretical computational analyses.1, 2 But did the data demonstrate a dinosaur to bird transition, or was it possibly manipulated in the spirit of academic politics?
The First Protein Sequences
A protein is a chain of amino acids and, generally speaking, is the functional end-product of a gene. Evolutionary scientists commonly use both DNA and protein sequences in comparative analyses, comparing the same type of gene or protein sequence between organisms to determine how closely related one is to another. Two organisms are considered closely related if they share a high percentage of amino acid sequence similarity for a certain protein. Evolutionary tree diagrams can be constructed based on this concept of sequence similarity, with the branches and grouping of organisms supposedly indicating their evolutionary relationships.
As things stand, the dinosaur proteins that were characterized are largely controlled by the dinosaur-to-bird proponents. Jack Horner, a world-renowned paleontologist, is a leading figure in this group. His faith in the dino-to-bird concept is so strong that he recently published a book describing how one might possibly reverse-engineer a dinosaur by modifying key developmental genes in the chicken genome.3 Dr. Mary Schweitzer, one of his colleagues and his former graduate student, is the leading scientist in the United States working with dinosaur soft tissue. Dr. Schweitzer and protein biochemist John Asara have led the effort to research and publish the dinosaur protein sequence findings.
The first protein sequences to be characterized and analyzed were collagen proteins from a T. rex femur bone, in which a number of papers were published describing both the soft-tissue and protein data.4,5,6,7 Collagen is a very durable protein that is common to most animals and is found in skin, bone, and other connective tissue.
In general, the scientific community found very little to dispute regarding the presence of real dinosaur tissue such as blood vessels and intact bone matrix, clearly defined cell types, and clearly defined cell microstructures such as nuclei and filipodia (osteocyte tendrils). The recently published T. rex collagen sequences, however, have met with some legitimate criticism from scientists who specialize in protein characterization and analysis techniques.
Protein Sequence Methodology
In order to understand their criticisms, it is important to know something of protein sequencing methodology. First, proteins are isolated and separated into subgroups based on their various masses. Then they are chopped into small fragments using an enzyme called trypsin. The trypsinized fragments are then run through a highly specialized instrument called a mass spectrometer, which determines the mass of each protein fragment (peptide) in the sample.
A tandem mass spectrometer setup will not only determine the mass of the trypsin fragments in the initial sample, but will also send them through a second mode where they are physically fragmented further and the mass of these sub-fragments is also determined. Peptide mass databases are then searched for matching fragment sizes for all data collected. Using a specialized algorithm on the sub-fragment data, it is possible to computationally assemble the actual amino acid sequence of a sizeable peptide fragment.
The first accusation against the T. rex protein sequences was that they were too small and had possibly suffered too many chemical modifications to be reliable.8, 9 It was also pointed out by critics that the lab that published the protein sequence data did not indicate if or how they controlled error rates, such as the discovery of false positives.9 Establishing the proper experimental controls and statistical measures for the presence of false positives is essential to providing an accurate protein sequence, especially for ancient proteins. As one journal article that critiqued the protein data stated, "Extraordinary science requires extraordinary proofs."9
A Dino-to-Bird Filter
Based on reported experimental methods and deduced peptide sequences, error rates would have been unacceptably high for all but one of the sequences the researchers reported. By ignoring error rates, one could choose from among hundreds of peptide fragments in a database those that most closely resemble bird proteins. In fact, a number of dinosaur protein fragments were chosen with 100 percent amino acid similarity to that of chicken collagen. One published critique quipped, "Maybe T. rex was a chicken after all."9
Those sequences of high enough quality to be usable were then analyzed using dino-to-bird evolution as a filter.10 Interestingly, an external laboratory re-analyzed the data using a computational technique called Neighbor-Net analysis that was better suited to the type of data collected.8 Their results showed that the T. rex protein grouped more closely with amphibians and did not show a close relationship with either chicken or ostrich--two birds that evolutionists like Jack Horner claim actually have dinosaur genomes with just a few minor differences to make them birds.
Having said all that, there is no doubt that fragments of real dinosaur proteins were obtained, because antibody experiments conclusively identified collagen in the tissue samples. The problem is that the quality of the samples was very poor, fragment identification did not properly account for error, and the evolutionary analyses appear to have been manipulated to support a politically correct dinosaur-to-bird model.
The more recent hadrosaur collagen sequencing appears to have been handled with more care in the lab side of the project, and peptide sequences of much larger size were reported and submitted to the public databases.2 So far, there has not been much time for critical responses to have been published, but it appears that the ancient protein recovery and sequencing techniques have improved. However, once again the dinosaur sequences are represented as being closer to chicken and ostrich than even other reptiles.
Where is the Data?
At the Institute for Creation Research, a number of preliminary protein alignments have been done using different algorithms at a variety of alignment/gap parameter settings. In these studies, the large T. rex peptide fragment and the hadrosaur protein sequences typically align more closely with a variety of animals other than chicken. The ostrich sequence was generated in-house by the Schweitzer-Asara group and, rather oddly, has never been submitted to any of the public protein database repositories. This is also the case with the alligator collagen sequence they developed in-house.
At the time of this article, DNA/protein database searches at both the National Center for Biotechnology Information and the European Molecular Biology Laboratory have contained no alligator or ostrich collagen sequence. While it is possible to obtain the ostrich and alligator sequence data from material on the Internet posted as supplements to publications, why has the data not been submitted to any of the major public databases so it can be cataloged, annotated, and curated? This seems a little odd, considering that the researchers readily submitted all of the possibly errant T. rex sequence to the public databases.
Based on comments about hypothetical sequences being utilized during the procurement of the ostrich data (which also included real mass-spec data), how does one know if the ostrich sequence wasn't manipulated in the process to be more dinosaur-like? The authors do state that the hypothetical ostrich sequence developed was based on a dino-to-bird transitional model.1
Conclusion
Although the supposedly 90 million-year-old hadrosaur collagen sequence appears to have been interpreted within the assumption of dino-to-bird evolution--a concept that a number of other leading evolutionists do not share--the fact that real tissue and proteins have been found seriously brings into question the whole concept of evolution and its required long ages. The remarkable preservation of these tissues found in sedimentary rock (sandstone) really speaks of only one thing: a rapid burial in a catastrophic worldwide flood as recorded in the Bible.
In fact, even evolutionists have contemplated the implications, as illustrated in the quote below from Jack Horner's recent book. The setting for this excerpt is a conversation between Dr. Horner and Mary Schweitzer when she was his graduate student. Schweitzer had just discovered and verified the presence of intact dinosaur tissue and was relaying the news to her mentor.
When Mary was first working on this material, she called me up to say she had found osteocytes. I assumed she meant the spaces where the osteocytes would have been, which is what I suggested.
"No, Jack, actually we have the cells and they have filipodia and they have nuclei."
"Mary, the freaking creationists are just going to love you."
"Jack, it's your dinosaur."11
That about sums it up!
References
- Asara, J. M. et al. 2007. Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectromety. Science. 316 (5822): 280-285.
- Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. Canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631.
- Horner, J. and J. Gorman. 2009. How to Build a Dinosaur. London: Penguin Books Ltd.
- Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 1997. Heme compounds in dinosaur trabecular bone. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 94 (12): 6291-6296.
- Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952-1955.
- Schweitzer, M. H., J. L. Wittmeyer and J. R. Horner. 2007. Soft tissue and cellular preservation in vertebrate skeletal elements from the Cretaceous to the present. Proceedings of the Royal Society. 274 (1607): 183-197.
- Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2007. Analysis of Soft Tissue from Tyrannosaurus rex Suggest the Presence of Protein. Science. 316 (5822): 277-280.
- Buckley, M. et al. 2008. Comment on "Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry." Science. 319 (5859): 33.
- Pevzner, P. A., S. Kim and J. Ng. 2008. Comment on "Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry." Science. 321 (5892): 1040.
- Organ, C. L. et al. 2008. Molecular Phylogenetics of Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 320 (5875): 499.
- Horner and Gorman, How to Build a Dinosaur, 80-81.
* Dr. Tomkins is Research Associate at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Tomkins, J. 2009. Dinosaur Protein Sequences and the Dino-to-Bird Model. Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 12-14.
Dinosaur DNA Research.........
Posted on 2009.10.01 at 12:33Current Location: Ill
Current Mood:
excited
Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence?
by James J. S. Johnson, J.D., Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D., and Brian Thomas, M.S.*
Dinosaurs are a popular topic of study, whether in the public imagination or in scientific research. The scientific community, however, has a dirty little secret regarding the manner in which that research is handled. If dinosaur DNA doesn't "look like chicken" (or a crocodile), it will most likely be discarded as "unreliable data" prior to publication--and thus be effectively censored from public access.
Why? Because evolutionary scientists are committed to only publish dinosaur DNA data that match their naturalistic tale of origins. Despite the amazing discoveries of soft tissue from dinosaur bones,1 dinosaur DNA research results (and other dinosaur "connective tissue" research) continue to be steered by evolutionary dogmatism.
Dino DNA
An article published in Science in 1993 illustrates how and why dinosaur bone research has been chillingly censored. "Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype" by Virginia Morell stated that "several groups are racing to get the first DNA out of dinosaur bones, but other researchers say their efforts are taking attention away from the real scientific value of ancient DNA."
This article referenced then-recent findings of fresh dinosaur tissue:
Mary Schweitzer, a biology graduate student at Montana State University's Museum of the Rockies, was examining a thin section of Tyrranosaurus rex bone…when she noticed a series of peculiar structures. Round and tiny and nucleated, they were threaded through the bone like red blood cells in blood vessels. But blood cells in a dinosaur bone should have disappeared eons ago. "I got goose bumps," recalls Schweitzer. "It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"2
Why was Schweitzer, an eyewitness who microscopically observed the insides of a T. rex bone, afraid to believe her own eyes? Isn't empirical science all about observation? Furthermore, Morell reported, "Schweitzer has already extracted a molecule that might be dinosaur DNA."
However, connective tissue ruins and degrades over time, such that DNA should not survive at all, even if the creature only lived 50,000 years ago.3 The existence of 65 million-year-old DNA is biochemically unthinkable. In other words, the old-earth evolutionary tale is clearly at odds with the fresh dinosaur bone evidence. How embarrassing to the academic establishment! This may be why ongoing dinosaur soft tissue discoveries are generally not broadcast through popular media channels.
Research Censorship
Evolutionary "damage control" is observed in the form of "chilling" (i.e., coerced) censorship of research, with severe consequences to those who "buck the system." Consider the research flow chart pictured below describing the process of extracting dinosaur DNA. Note steps 7 and especially 8. Why must the research results be dismissed if the DNA extract doesn't look like birds or crocodiles? The answer is evolutionary gatekeeping:
To make sure she's liberated the right molecule, Schweitzer compares the extracted DNA sequences with those of hundreds of living organisms. If the sequence turns out to be similar to that of a known fungal gene, for example, she knows the sample has been contaminated.
That's how DNA hunters know they've gone wrong. But how do they know when they're on the right track, given that there are no living dinosaurs to provide a handy sample of DNA for comparison? The answer is that they rely on paleontological theory, which (according to most researchers) holds that dinosaurs and crocodiles came from the same stock, and that the dinosaurs' only living descendants are birds. Therefore researchers look for DNA that is similar, but not identical, to DNA from these groups of organisms.4
In other words, only DNA research that provides dinosaur DNA sequences similar to those of birds and crocodiles is allowed. As the flowchart indicates, all other results are deemed anomalies that should be rejected as though they were known contaminants, like fungal genes. This approach is not observation-directed empirical research; this is assumption-driven, theory-dictated censorship--"science" falsely so-called.5
Coerced Spoliation of Evidence
This purposeful pattern of coerced concealment of the nonconforming DNA data from unfossilized dinosaur bones (labeled "an anomaly" on the chart) involves what courtroom lawyers and judges call "chilling" coercion and "spoliation of evidence"--inducing the concealment (and eventual destruction) of embarrassing information in order to prevent one's opponent from using it at trial.
Whenever any kind of evidence is concealed, one immediately questions the spoliators' motives for doing so. The intuitive answer is that they dislike what the information would reveal. Therefore, to spoliate evidence suggests that the spoliators' argument or theory would be weakened, or embarrassed, by that evidence. This suggestion is so strong, forensically speaking, that it is treated as a rule of presumptive inference in law courts. In other words, if someone hides evidence in this way, the law presumes that the hidden evidence was damaging to the argument of the spoliator. The spoliator then bears the burden of proof to show otherwise.6
A kindred rule to the foregoing…is that the intentional spoliation or destruction of evidence relevant to a case raises a presumption that the evidence would have been unfavorable to the cause of the spoliator.…The deliberate destruction of evidence gives rise to the presumption that the matter destroyed is not favorable to the spoliator.7
This shows that the civil law courts understand the importance of evidence spoliation--it points to a willingness to conceal or otherwise suppress truth in order to advance a specific cause. The name Arthur Andersen comes to mind, as this accounting firm's shredding of Enron documents hindered SEC investigators.8
Follow the Procedure, or Else
In suppressed dinosaur DNA research--which is a subset of the irrefutable, but hushed, dinosaur soft tissue discoveries--the same issue of evidence spoliation is relevant. Why? Because today's dinosaur DNA controversy in particular, and today's dinosaur "connective tissue" controversy in general, directly puts at issue the real age of the dinosaurs: Did they live millions of years ago, or in much more recent history on an earth inhabited by humans--descendants of Adam and Eve?9
How will anyone really know what dinosaur DNA sequences look like until uncensored data from dinosaur bones are published for public scrutiny? And how will such data be published at all if "embarrassing" research results are routinely discarded as anomalous, simply because they didn't "look like chicken"? One way to acquire more reliable data in this case would be to repeat the DNA research across multiple labs, until consistent results emerge.
In fact, a similar approach was taken in 1994. The winners of the race to sequence dinosaur DNA were Scott Woodward and his colleagues, who published their results in Science.10 They extracted DNA from a purportedly well-preserved dinosaur bone. However, they were not rewarded for their victory. The sequence they discovered was not like birds or reptiles, but seemed unique.
These researchers decided not to follow the procedure outlined in the 1993 flowchart, which would have "told" them that what they found was an unacceptable "anomaly." Since this 1994 DNA did not fit the evolutionary interpretive filter, the authors were raked over the academic coals. Moreover, the objections to their results were not based on conflicting research results, but appeared in editorials and reviews. As a result of the uproar from the scientific community, their dinosaur DNA sequence never became a permanent entry in any public database. In fact, since this very public academic flogging, no scientist has attempted to publish any dinosaur DNA research (resulting in "chilled" academic speech).
Interestingly, Schweitzer has never published any of her purported DNA research on dinosaur tissue, although she has published on tissue analyses and, recently, data on protein sequence. While the tissue analyses reported over the past decade are nearly impossible to dispute, this recently published dinosaur protein sequence from a T. rex came under extreme criticism and the data were highly questioned by peers as having been manipulated to produce close similarities with chicken and ostrich protein.11 Was this done as per the "paleontological theory and protocol" described in 1993?
Conclusion
The gatekeeping approach to ancient DNA research established as a protocol in 1993 is a product of dogmatic evolutionary theory. The 1994 results put the dogma to the test, with the result that:
- Ancient DNA, known to be unstable, was extracted from "80 million-year-old" bone.
- The sequence, though it showed evidence of decay, was no more bird-like than it was mammal-like.
The coerced suppression of the results by the evolutionary scientific community has dissuaded anyone else from publishing dinosaur DNA research that is not in line with evolutionary dictates. Such self-censorship "chills" empirical research, which prevents the public reporting of observable DNA sequences in order to insulate the larger story of particles-to-people evolution from cross-examination.
Where are the real scientists in dinosaur DNA research who refuse to kowtow to evolution's gatekeepers?
References
- Thomas, B. 2009. Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay. Acts & Facts. 38 (9): 18.
- Morell, V. 1993. Dino DNA: The Hunt and the Hype. Science. 261 (5118): 160.
- Ibid, 161. (This illustrates the thermodynamic maxim "as time increases, chemistry wins over biology.”)
- Difficulties With Dinosaur DNA, ibid, 161.
- 1 Timothy 6:20.
- See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Johnson, 106 S.W.3d 718, 46 Tex. Supr. Ct. J. 685 (Tex. 2003) (summarizing Texas jurisprudence regarding spoliation of evidence), citing Armory v. Delamirie, 1 Strange 505, 93 Engl. Rep. 664 (K.B. 1722) (illustrating how spoliation of evidence, as a legal problem, predates the USA's existence).
- Quoting H.E. Butt Grocery Co. v. Bruner, 530 S.W.2d 340, 344 (Tex. Civ. App. – Waco, 1975, writ dismissed by agr't), citing McCormick & Ray, TEXAS EVIDENCE (2nd ed.), Volume I, § 103, pages 141-142.
- See, e.g., In re Enron Corporation Securities, Derivative & "ERISA" Litigation, 2003 WL 25508889 (S.D. Tex. 2003) (discussing how Arthur Andersen accountants committed spoliation of evidence by shredding Enron documents to hinder the SEC's investigation of Enron, etc.).
- There are indications that dinosaurs have lived within the last few thousands, and maybe even hundreds, of years. See Cooper, B. 1995. After the Flood. Chichester, UK: New Wine Press, 130-161, which documents and discusses historical records of human encounters with strange creatures during various centuries after Christ, involving detailed descriptions of wild animals that today would be called dinosaurs.
- Woodward, S. R., N. J. Weyand and M. Bunnell. 1994. DNA Sequence from Cretaceous Period Bone Fragments. Science. 266 (5188): 1229-1232.
- For more details, see Tomkins, J. 2009. Dinosaur Protein Sequences and the Dino-to-Bird Model. Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 12-14.
* Dr. Johnson is Special Counsel at ICR. Dr. Tomkins, ICR Research Associate, worked in academic research in genetics and genomics for 18+ years, 12 involving research in cloning and sequencing DNA from a wide variety of plants, animals and microbes. Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Johnson, J. J. S., J. Tomkins and B. Thomas. 2009. Dinosaur DNA Research: Is the tale wagging the evidence? Acts & Facts. 38 (10): 4-6.
To all my Jewish friends !
=)
=)
Dinosaur Soft Tissue.......
Posted on 2009.09.04 at 09:17Current Location: Ill
Current Mood:
thoughtful
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay
by Brian Thomas, M.S.*
In recent decades, soft, squishy tissues have been discovered inside fossilized dinosaur bones. They seem so fresh that it appears as though the bodies were buried only a few thousand years ago.
Since many think of a fossil as having had the original bone material replaced by minerals, the presence of actual bone--let alone pliable blood vessels, red blood cells, and proteins inside the bone--is quite extraordinary. These finds also present a dilemma. Given the fact that organic materials like blood vessels and blood cells rot, and the rates at which certain proteins decay, how could these soft tissues have been preserved for ten thousand, let alone 65 million or more, years?
These soft tissues have met with hard resistance from mainstream science, and some scientists have even discounted or ignored them. But fresh studies keep finding fresh tissue, making the issue difficult to dismiss. Either the vast evolutionary ages assigned to these finds are dramatically erroneous, or "we really don't understand decay" rates of the soft tissues and proteins.1
Paleontologists who have analyzed the tissues, visible through their microscopes and squeezable with their tweezers, insist that something is fundamentally wrong with laboratory data on biochemical decay rates.2 In turn, biochemists are confident that their repeatable experiments show that the soft tissues should not be there after all this time. To try to get around the hard facts of soft tissues, some scientists have even proposed that the blood vessels and red blood cells in question were bacterial slime. This was thoroughly refuted, however, by research showing that the dinosaur tissue contains a collagen protein that bacteria do not produce.3
This dilemma between the science of biochemistry and the belief in millions of years is not going away. In addition to the well-characterized tissues from a T. rex reported by paleontologist Mary Schweitzer in 1997,4 2005,5 and 2007,6 new soft tissue finds keep surfacing. Schweitzer published a report on another sample in Science in 2009,3 this time from a hadrosaur, in which the precise characteristics of dinosaur biochemicals were verified by a third party. This was necessary to confirm the reality of the soft tissues to an incredulous scientific community. (Similarly, Schweitzer's 2007 results have also been verified.7)
Yet another hadrosaur has been described by UK scientists as "absolutely gobsmacking."8 Its tissues were "extremely well preserved" and contained "soft-tissue replacement structures and associated organic compounds."9
Schweitzer's team recently concluded that "the most parsimonious explanation, thus far unfalsified, is that original molecules persist in some Cretaceous dinosaur fossils."3 But biochemical decay rates showing that soft tissues would be dust after all this time are also thus far unfalsified (i.e., have not been disproved). Therefore, the millions-of-years age assignments must go.
However, if the deep time goes, then so does the grand story of evolution that depends on it. For many, that is too sacred an assumption to dare alter. Biblical data, however, not only provide the timeframe for the death of these dinosaurs in Flood deposits a few thousand years ago, but also a mode of deposition in agreement with observable data that their demise occurred when they "fell into a watery grave."8
References
1. Fields, H. 2006. Dinosaur Shocker. Smithsonian magazine online. Published May 2006, accessed July 20, 2009.
2. For example, see Bada, J. L., X. S. Wang and H. Hamilton. 1999. Preservation of key biomolecules in the fossil record: current knowledge and future challenges. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B. 354 (1379): 77-87.
3. Schweitzer, M. H. et al. 2009. Biomolecular Characterization and Protein Sequences of the Campanian Hadrosaur B. canadensis. Science. 324 (5927): 626-631.
4. Schweitzer, M. and T. Staedter. 1997. The Real Jurassic Park. Earth. 6 (3): 55-57.
5. Schweitzer, M. et al. 2005. Soft-Tissue Vessels and Cellular Preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex. Science. 307 (5717): 1952.
6. Asara, J. M. et al. 2007. Protein Sequences from Mastodon and Tyrannosaurus Rex Revealed by Mass Spectrometry. Science. 316 (5822): 280-285.
7. Bern, M., B. S. Phinney and D. Goldberg. 2009. Reanalysis of Tyrannosaurus rex Mass Spectra. Journal of Proteome Research. Published online July 15, 2009.
8. Mummified dinosaur skin yields up new secrets. The University of Manchester press release, July 1, 2009.
9. Manning, P. L. et al. 2009. Mineralized soft-tissue structure and chemistry in a mummified hadrosaur from the Hell Creek Formation, North Dakota (USA). Proceedings of the Royal Society B. Published online before print, July 1, 2009.
Image Credit: Christian Darkin / Photo Researchers, Inc.
* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.
Cite this article: Thomas, B. 2009. Dinosaur Soft Tissue Issue Is Here to Stay. Acts & Facts. 38 (9): 18.
