October 22, 2014

Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin

pin it button Human Genome Project Supports Adam, Not Darwin

From Creation Evolution Headlines

Feb 21, 2011 — Science magazine last week had a special series of articles on the 10-year anniversary of the Human Genome project.  Most of the articles expanded on how different the findings were from predictions.  The publication of the genome did not identify our evolution; it did not lead to miracle cures.  What it did most of all was upset apple carts, and show just how complex the library of information behind our smiling faces really is..  A couple of excerpts are characteristic.
John Mattick of the University of Queensland commented about how “The Genomic Foundation is Shifting” in his brief essay for Science.1 “For me,” he began, “the most important outcome of the human genome project has been to expose the fallacy that most genetic information is expressed as proteins.”  He spoke of the Central Dogma of genetics – the principle that DNA is the master controller of heredity, translating its information into proteins that create our bodies and brains.  For one thing, the number of genes is far smaller than expected (only 1.5% of human DNA contains genes), and is overwhelmed by non-coding DNA (earlier assumed to be genetic junk) that generates RNA, that regulates the expression of genes, especially during development.  The histone code and other revelations have generated “aftershocks” to the initial tremor that undermined the Central Dogma.  He concluded,

These observations suggest that we need to reassess the underlying genetic orthodoxy, which is deeply ingrained and has been given superficial reprieve by uncritically accepted assumptions about the nature and power of combinatorial control.  As Nobel laureate Barbara McClintock wrote in 1950: “Are we letting a philosophy of the [protein-coding] gene control [our] reasoning? What, then, is the philosophy of the gene? Is it a valid philosophy?” … There is an alternative: Human complexity has been built on a massive expansion of genomic regulatory sequences, most of which are transacted by RNAs that use generic protein infrastructure and control the epigenetic mechanisms underpinning embryogenesis and brain function. I see the human genome not simply as providing detail, but more importantly, as the beginning of a conceptual enlightenment in biology.

In another essay in the 18 February issue of Science, Maynard Olson [U of Washington, Seattle] asked, “What Does a ‘Normal’ Human Genome Look Like?”  Olson did not wish to get embroiled in old debates about nature vs. nurture other than to acknowledge that they still exist despite the publication of the human genome.  Instead, he asked what factors are minor players in human variation.  One of them, he said, in a statement that might have raised Darwin’s eyebrows, is “balancing selection, the evolutionary process that favors genetic diversification rather than the fixation of a single ‘best’ variant”; instead, he continued, this “appears to play a minor role outside the immune system.”  Another also-ran are the variations we most often notice in people: “Local adaptation, which accounts for variation in traits such as pigmentation, dietary specialization, and susceptibility to particular pathogens is also a second-tier player.”  The primary factor is another eyebrow-raiser for Darwinists:

What is on the top tier? Increasingly, the answer appears to be mutations that are ‘deleterious’ by biochemical or standard evolutionary criteria. These mutations, as has long been appreciated, overwhelmingly make up the most abundant form of nonneutral variation in all genomes. A model for human genetic individuality is emerging in which there actually is a ‘wild-type’ human genome—one in which most genes exist in an evolutionarily optimized form. There just are no ‘wild-type’ humans: We each fall short of this Platonic ideal in our own distinctive ways.


1.  John Mattick, “The Genomic Foundation is Shifting,” Science, 18 February 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6019 p. 874, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203703.
2.  Maynard V. Olson, “What Does a ‘Normal’ Human Genome Look Like?”, Science, 18 February 2011: Vol. 331 no. 6019 p. 872, DOI: 10.1126/science.1203236.

Did you catch that?  These are phenomenal admissions in a secular science journal.  Mattick showed how many ways the evolutionary geneticists were wrong.  They expected to find the secret of our humanness in DNA – the master controller, honed by evolution, that made us what we are.  Instead, they were astonished to find complexity in a vast array of regulatory sequences beyond the genes (epigenetic, above the gene), including codes upon codes.  They appear to make DNA just a side show in a much more complex story that will require a “conceptual enlightenment in biology.”  This implies that pre-Human Genome biology was unenlightened.  By quoting McClintock’s prescient questions, he declared that the philosophy of biology that has ruled the 19th and 20th centuries is invalid.
Olson’s revelations are even more shocking, and, in a way, delightful – for those who believe that the Bible, not Darwin, tells where man came from.  Olson essentially said that Darwinists should pack up and go home, because the factors that they have counted on to explain human complexity are minor players.  Then he said that most mutations are harmful, bad, deleterious, regressive, plaguing each individual person.  For the coup-de-grace, he said that there seems to be a “Platonic ideal” of the human makeup (wild-type referring to natural) from which we all “fall short.”  This is the opposite of Darwinian evolutionary ascent from slime; it is descent with modification downward from an initial ideal state.  Biblical creationists will shout Amen: we have all fallen from Adam!
Paul the Apostle explained in the classic statement about Adam that the first man was the “wild type” after which things went terribly wrong when he sinned: “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned— for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not counted where there is no law.  Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type [i.e., wild type, Platonic ideal in real human flesh] of the one who was to come” (Romans 5:12-14).  Isn’t that exactly what we see around us?
Not to leave us in despair, Paul continued with the joyful good news about the second Adam, Jesus Christ – who by solving the sin problem through his death and resurrection, became the progenitor of all who could become righteous and inherit eternal life:

But the free gift is not like the trespass.  For if many died through one man’s trespass, much more have the grace of God and the free gift by the grace of that one man Jesus Christ abounded for many.  And the free gift is not like the result of that one man’s sin.  For the judgment following one trespass brought condemnation, but the free gift following many trespasses brought justification.  For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.
Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.  19For as by the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man’s obedience the many will be made righteous.  Now the law came in to increase the trespass, but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more, so that, as sin reigned in death, grace also might reign through righteousness leading to eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.  (Romans 5:15-20).

To be sure, Mattick and Olson were probably not intending to agree with the Bible in their revelations about the Human Genome, but everything they said is consistent with Scriptural teaching, but is not consistent with what the Darwinists teach.  Their expectations have been falsified; their philosophy has been found wanting.  The Bible had it right all along!  If you are fallen from the ideal of Adam, Jesus Christ (not Darwin, not Plato) provides the pathway to a return to the Maker’s ideal.  It is a gift, through faith, thanks to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.  Paul, an early persecutor of Christians, who was transformed by seeing the risen Christ on the Damascus road, speaks to us all today: “We urge you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God” (II Corinthians 5:14-21).

Read the Full Article here: http://creationsafaris.com/crev201102.htm#20110221a

0 commentsback to post

Other articlesgo to homepage

Does Modern Science Hinder Skepticism? The Eugenics Example

Does Modern Science Hinder Skepticism? The Eugenics Example

Pin It

One of the important and counterintuitive insights that C.S. Lewis offered was his observation that far from encouraging skepticism, the mention of “science” can call forth a perilous gullibility, not least from educated, intelligent people who should know better.

Healthy skepticism is a cornerstone of the scientific process. Knowledge is advanced and new discoveries are made by challenging scientific results and testing alternative hypotheses.

Lewis recognized, though, that science can also promote an uncritical acceptance of views that are said to be backed by science or wrapped in science-y language. In Lewis’s time, most scientists supported eugenics, or the belief that the gene pool of humans should be improved, and they argued that their views were supported by science. These views led to policies such as forced sterilization of those deemed to be of less worth, such as criminals and the handicapped. These policies were not only popular in authoritarian regimes like Nazi Germany, but in democracies such as the United States and England. Anyone who opposed what the vast majority of scientists were saying must be “anti-science,” it was argued.

So what has changed since then? Are we supposed to believe that just a century ago, elite opinion in science and in the culture at large was so terribly fallible and vulnerable to being misled by prejudice — yet today, it cannot err?

Dr. Offit Wants to Eliminate Religious and Philosophical Vaccine Exemptions

Dr. Offit Wants to Eliminate Religious and Philosophical Vaccine Exemptions

Pin It

We have previously reported how Dr. Paul Offit, the mainstream media’s go-to doctor to support vaccines, has huge conflicts of interest, and is a very dangerous man. We mentioned how Paul Offit wants mandatory vaccines for every single child in the United States, and he feels his voice in the matter should over-rule parental choice.

So with the mainstream media giving him basically a free pass to preach his message, Offit has attacked anyone who dares to question his view on vaccines. Earlier this year, he publicly stated at the Health Journalism 2014 meeting that journalists should NOT be balanced in their reporting about vaccines. He wants only one side reported, his side, and he stated publicly that journalists who publish the other side should go to “journalism jail.”

Offit thinks that only medical exemptions should be issued for vaccines, and has campaigned for ending religious and philosophical exemptions. Allowing only medical exemptions would give complete control of America’s school-age children to the medical system in regards to vaccines.

So should doctors like Offit be considered authorities on religious and philosophical exemptions to vaccines? He claims science trumps philosophy or religion. So if you object to things in vaccines such as cells from aborted human embryos, monkey kidneys, aborted calf fetus blood, mouse brains, etc. – too bad. According to Offit, only doctors should make those decisions.

For a response to Dr. Offit by another doctor, Dr. Suzanne Humphries, we republish with her consent a previous rebuttal she wrote to Dr. Offit below. Turns out that not all doctors agree with Offit after all…

When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design

When Biologists Think Like Engineers: How the Burgeoning Field of Systems Biology Supports Intelligent Design

Pin It

Opponents of the intelligent design (ID) approach to biology have sometimes argued that the ID perspective discourages scientific investigation. To the contrary, it can be argued that the most productive new paradigm in systems biology is actually much more compatible with a belief in the intelligent design of life than with a belief in neo-Darwinian evolution. This new paradigm in system biology, which has arisen in the past ten years or so, analyzes living systems in terms of systems engineering concepts such as design, information processing, optimization, and other explicitly teleological concepts. This new paradigm offers a successful, quantitative, predictive theory for biology. Although the main practitioners of the field attribute the presence of such things to the outworking of natural selection, they cannot avoid using design language and design concepts in their research, and a straightforward look at the field indicates it is really a design approach altogether.

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened?

Pin It

It’s a struggle out there. You have to be fit to survive. When the pressure is on, nature favors the ones who can take the heat.

It’s a theme that has been drummed into our heads since school. It’s a cultural meme. Social Darwinists used it to justify atrocities. Today’s kinder, gentler Darwinists downplay the violence in the struggle for existence, yet the fact as they see it is inescapable: environmental circumstances select random genetic mutations that confer fitness, i.e., survival, by allowing organisms to adapt.

That in a nutshell explains the development of complex life forms. We’re assured there are gobs of evidence for it, too.

Looking into a recent paper in PNAS about evolutionary fitness tradeoffs, you have to feel sorry for a team of five evolutionists from UC Irvine who did their level best to produce clear evidence for the favored story.

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

What Can We Responsibly Believe About Human Evolution?

Pin It

The evolution of consciousness is presently inexplicable: Can we really understand a transition from the excrement-throwing ape to the early cave paintings as a long, slow series?

read more


Get the news right in your inbox!