Genetics

Creation News

May, 2018

May’s newsletter is dedicated to recent findings in science related to creation. It reflects the author’s interests and is by no means comprehensive or exhaustive. 

Jonathan Sarfati, Russ Humphreys, and John Sanford Are Coming to the Triangle This Fall

These three men are some of the finest creation scientists alive today! Plan now to take advantage of these rare opportunities.

Jonathan Sarfati of Creation Ministries International and author of Refuting Compromise will be visiting the Triangle this September. He will be speaking at Cornerstone Baptist Church on Sunday morning September 23 at 9:30 PM. On Sunday night he will be at Friendship Baptist Church. On Monday night, September 24, the goal/plan is to get him on the NC State campus. On Tuesday night, September 24, he will be back at Cornerstone at 7:00 PM. Then on Wednesday night, September 25, he will be at Community Baptist Church in south Garner. Mark your calendars! Tell your friends!

Russ Humphreys and John Sanford will be each giving two lectures at NC State on Saturday, November 10. Russ Humphreys is perhaps best known for his solution to the starlight-time problem but has also been a pioneer in other areas such as accelerated nuclear decay and the modeling and prediction of planetary magnetic fields. John Sanford is a world-class biologist who, late in his career, became a biblical creationist and now explains why macroevolution has never happened and is impossible. Bring your skeptical friends to hear these insightful men!

Fossils and Genetics: a Deadly Duo for Transitional Species and for Darwin's Theory

June, 2013
Figure 1 - Artist's conception of Archaeopteryx

In his foundational work, generally known as "The Origin of Species," but seldom (for obvious reasons) cited by its full title, "On the Origin of Species by Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life," Charles Darwin proposed a bold test for his theory when he said:

If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” 1

But to Darwin’s credit, in making that statement, he was acknowledging a fundamental truth of the scientific method: that is, that in order to be testable, a scientific theory must make precise predictions as to what would be revealed by further examination of the relevant data.

Radical Differences Between Human and Chimp Y Chromosomes Open a Bounty of Research Rabbit Holes for Scientists to Plunder

July, 2010

chromosomes

Click on image to see enlarged view

With support from the United States National Institutes of Health and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, scientists from several medical research laboratories in the United States and the Netherlands have recently completed a series of experiments designed to sequence the male-specific region of the Y chromosome (MSY) in the chimpanzee. 1 In their words, they achieved for the first time “levels of accuracy and completion previously reached for the human MSY.” They also compared the MSYs of humans and chimpanzees and found that “they differ radically

Who Were the Neanderthals?

January, 2009

Neanderthal

The Devil’s Tower Neanderthal child (model reconstruction)
ht
tp://www.ifi.uzh.ch/~zolli/CAP/Gib2.htm

The identity of the Neanderthals is a hotly debated question in anthropological circles nowadays. The question is whether Neanderthals and Homo sapiens interbred. Even in the church, the question of whether the Neanderthals were the descendants of Adam and Noah or genetically and spiritually separate species continues between young earth and progressive creationists. For those who take the scriptures in a straight-forward manner, the Neanderthals must have been a fully human post Flood people, whose unique morphological traits were erased through interbreeding with our ancestors.

God’s Wisdom in the Genome

December, 2008

The genome of organisms contains their genetic material, which largely determines how they will develop. Scientists are learning more and more about the genome of various organisms, which is revealing more and more about the amazing wisdom of God in their design and creation. It seems that our understanding of the functioning of life is always incomplete, and the genome is always more complex than we had thought. Will we ever fully understand the functioning of life, or will it always be a mystery to us?

First we present excerpt from an article about genetics in a recent issue of a magazine produced by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. This article shows some unexpected features of the genome. What one  typically calls a gene is really a protein-coding gene and contains instructions for making one or more proteins. The DNA that is not included in such genes has been called “junk DNA” in the past, but now we are learning that this DNA has a function and contains genes that do not code for protein. This DNA that does not code for protein is now called noncoding DNA.

Humans are strikingly similar to a bunch of different critters—genetically, at least. Sixty percent of human genes are fundamentally the same as fruit fly genes, and somewhere around ninety percent of our genes are the same as mouse genes. 1

Recent Discoveries in Genetics

May, 2007

Image

Several recent discoveries in genetics reveal even more of the amazing properties of the genome and give additional evidence for the design of life by an intelligent creator. DNA consists of a long sequence of four nucleotide bases. Proteins consist of sequences of about twenty amino acids, and are specified by a coding system in which three successive nucleotide bases of DNA constitute a “codon” and are translated into a specific amino acid. However, there are more codons than amino acids, so more than one codon corresponds to a given amino acid in many cases.

Now, within everyone’s DNA are “SNPs”, single nucleotide polymorphisms. This is a site at which many humans have differing nucleotides. Sometimes such a difference does not influence the amino acid coded for. For example, the codons UCU and UCC both code for serine, so a change of uracil to cytosine at this point in the RNA, corresponding to a change of thymine to cytosine in the DNA, has no effect on the sequence of amino acids in the protein. Is there then any difference between such codons in terms of their effects on the organism?

Man or Ape: Which are You? Which do You Choose?

March, 2007

Mar 01, 2007 at 12:00 AM

O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred from the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.” I Timothy 6: 20-21 (KJV)

As we approach this topic, I want to remind us of Paul’s admonition to the young Christian, Timothy, to make strong efforts to keep his faith. Dr. Henry Morris in his commentary on these verses in his annotated The Defenders Study Bible points out that “Science falsely so called” is in the Greek, literally “pseudo-science” or “pseudo-knowledge."

Puzzles of the Genome

December, 2006

Image


The genome of an animal contains the DNA that specifies the characteristics of the animal. This is in the form of a sequence of four bases; the sequence of the human genome is over three billion bases long. Of course, different individuals have different sequences. A few years ago the human genome project completed a description of the sequence of the human genome, and several other animals’ genomes have been sequenced since then. Scientists sometimes claim that these genomes provide evidence for the theory of evolution. However, recent results show how little we really know about the genome, and therefore it is unreasonable to assert that the genome provides evidence for evolution, when we understand it so poorly. 

Does the Molecular Evidence Prove Common Ancestry is a "Fact?"

November, 2006

Genesis 1 describes the separate creation of various organisms “after their kind.” This means that all life on earth is primarily related through having a common creator and not through common descent. When evolutionists claim that molecules-to-man macroevolution is a “fact”, they are often referring to evidence for common ancestry irrespective of any evolutionary mechanism. This approach helps them avoid the inherent difficulties associated with explaining how point mutations, genetic recombinations, gene duplication, and natural selection could create new genetic information by chance. One way evolutionists try to support the idea of common ancestry involves comparison of homologous DNA sequences and proteins between organisms (molecular homology). Presumably, the greater the similarities between DNA or protein sequences in different organisms, the more recent has been the divergence from a common ancestor. Two lines of molecular evidence will be explored in this report: comparisons of cytochrome c and endogenous retroviral elements (RVEs).

Image

Pages

Subscribe to RSS - Genetics