With my recent evangelistic opportunities (the Lord opened a door for me to preach to my neighbor and a recent employee doing overtime on my shift) I have decided to paste this short article from CSE's site. In addition, my good friend Pedro and I have had some interesting comment sessions on the woodpecker, see comments from my post Could Evolution Do This?
This is also a great explanation and defense for those are presented with the age old question "how did Noah fit all those animals on the ark?" When they ask this question they often have the the presupposition and misconception which is that Noah encountered all the "species" we now see and have today. This is not the case. Enjoy the article - All comments are welcome.
How Did Noah Fit All the "Species" on the Ark?
How could Noah fit millions of species in the ark? That would be simply impossible. And upon this common-sense observation, many make the next logical leap that the Bible is simply in error. But let's reexamine their premise. What is a species? Scientific American asked this same question in their June 2008 issue, showing a clear inability by even the scientific experts to quantify the label "species." Most commonly, a species is defined by its ability to interbreed with like creatures. But by this definition, millions of species populate our planet, and lugging them on board the ark would have been a logistical nightmare. The term "fire hazard" doesn't even begin to describe problems that would have existed on that ark. Such a situation is clearly unthinkable.
But the Bible does not use the word "species." The Bible says that Noah was to bring on board every "kind." So rather than differentiating between twenty-seven different species of fox, perhaps Noah only took two foxes on board, which later produced the many species of fox we see today. Then again, perhaps he only took two of the dog-like kind aboard. There is certainly no reason to believe that the many varieties of dogs in the world (including the fox species, wolves, and coyotes) could not have come from just two of the dog kind. Evolutionists have often laughed at this idea, claiming that the 4,400 years between now and when we believe Noah left the ark simply do not allow enough time for such variation to take place within a kind. And yet they believe that in only a few million years, every plant and animal alive on the planet today was produced out of primordial mud. Watch the CSE Question & Research Team discuss these possibilities in our latest episode of Creation In Common Sense.
Evidence conclusively reveals that variation within a kind can take place in only a matter of decades. Dr. Dmitri Belyaev's work in breeding domesticated silver foxes that produced animals with dog-like characteristics in just forty years is a wonderful example of God's intelligent design in action. See, while evolution would tell us that animals gain new genetic information and evolve into entirely different kinds—even though this is not observed in nature—we do observe an amazing usage of the genetic information that is already present in the cell. In a world of such varying climes and habitats, the importance of the ability to adapt is paramount. And when God crafted the genetic material that would govern the growth of His creatures, the loving, all-knowing Creator also gave them the ability to adjust to their environments to ensure their survival. In this way, God's creatures continue to live their lives, and continue to be living testimonies to the intelligent Designer—God.
13 comments:
Quick comment - again, not an argument, just clarifying details; I might add more later:
Belyaev's experiment was fascinating.
At the end, he had what is something like a domesticated version of a fox, just as a dog is a domesticated version of a wolf. He didn't have a new species. (And a dog is not a different species from wolf - used to be called Canis familiaris, but now after genetic research, it is called a subspecies of wolf, Canis lupus familiaris.)
That article says that all plants and animals were supposed to have been produced from the ooze in a 'few million years'? That's wrong - as I said in another post, there's a few millions years just since the coyote diverged from the wolf. I think it's more like 3.5 billion years estimated since the origin of life.
(But the time of any single event depends on circumstances.)
For starters, Darwin himself said it;
He says in his "Origin of Species," "I believe that animals are descended from at most only four or five progenitors; and plants from an equal or lesser number.... Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants are descended from one prototype..... All the organic beings, which have ever lived on the earth, may be descended from some one primordial form."
(Joe, I can't see how your post is in response to mine so maybe it's a comment on the article, or something else?
Just because Darwin was the main originator of the idea of evolution doesn't require everything he said to have been correct.
But I don't see a problem with the idea that there was one original life-form that was the source of all the rest. Maybe there was one single form which produced many forms but only one had descendants that survive today. And/or maybe there were a number of early proto-life-forms that contributed to one form that was the source of all current life. And/or maybe there were a few successful strains that swapped DNA back and forth. But at some point it seems like there must have been one origin for current life because the DNA uses the same code. (I'm sure there are sources online that say this more accurately and more clearly than that, so I hope that is right.) I'm not sure what you are responding to with that quote though.)
I thought you were arguing that it wasn't said that all living organisms today came from one life form. So your argument is the timing then..... Interesting.
Have you listened to yourself in your last comment? Your last comment overwhelmingly shows your faith in evolution, also showing it to be your religion, hence why I like calling it "Evolutionism". I say that because you have such a lack of evidence and yet you believe that one life form produced the millions of different completely separate life forms we see today, even though it's never been observed that one species of animal changed into a completely different species. Nor has the genome ever been observed to add code that wasn't there already.
Here are your words which are peppered throughout your posts;
"maybe there was....."
"And/or maybe there were a number of......"
"And/or maybe there were a few....."
"But at some point it seems like....."
This is why/how you believe in evolution? This is pure speculation. If evolution were a fact as I'm assuming your claiming it to be otherwise you would not be commenting on these posts, then shouldn't you have some concrete, non disputable evidence for it? Should you not have some evidence that is observable, repeatable and/or something that can be demonstrated or has been observed in the lab over and over again? If I were you I would really study and search out the claims and supposed evidences that macro evolution proposes. I think you will find there is none.
Joe
My last post was on the origin of life, which for which there is still not evidence.
(you have an especially nice picture of the earth today)
"Nor has the genome ever been observed to add code that wasn't there already."
Okay, I'll turn this statement back to you. What do you specifically mean by that, and what do you expect to see?
When you say "observed" do you mean in the lab? Or in the genomes of different life-forms?
If you are talking about looking in the genomes of different life forms, what specifically would you expect to see according to your idea of evolution that is different from what we do see? What specifically might you expect to see if all the 'kinds' resulted from separate creations? (And how do you decide what we might see from separate creation, since God could have done it in many different ways?) How do those ideas compare with what we do see?
What specifically would you expect to see for you to consider a change in genome as being 'added' as opposed to being 'not added'? For instance, do duplications with variation between the duplicated regions count as addition to you or not?
Since all the features of animals result from their genomes, can you talk about specific features that are different between 'kinds' whose genetic basis you think does not fit with your idea of evolution? How about the animals you think are irreversibly complex?
I'd like some examples so I know what you think is not being added to the genome despite its variations, and what you think should be there according to your view of evolution, and how you think what is there is an example of creation as opposed to evolution.
Sure it's simple:
"time and chance cannot produce new (more) genetic information."
Joe
How do you know?
How would you define new (more) genetic code? How would you recognize it if you saw it?
Suppose a single mutation changes a gene to give a visible change in an animal? Is that 'new code'? There was a sheep born with a single base pair mutation that caused heavy muscle development. It was different enough for the owner to spot him in the flock of sheep. He was named 'Solid Gold' and used for breeding. His offspring had the same heavy muscle development, and they were healthy and fertile. There was no change in protein - it was a change in regulation of a gene. Was this 'new code'? It was different code by one single letter change.
(I know I asked a lot of questions all at one time.)
Did "Solid Gold" become anything other than a sheep? If given "X" amount of years could your sheep, by chance and mutation turn into, say a polar bear?
Solid Gold was a sheep, and he stayed a sheep. Whether his offsprings' offsprings' many generations offsprings or the offspring of any other sheep would evolve into some very different kinds in millions of years - possible but no way to know. It would be extremely unlikely that something would evolve into a close equivalent of a current polar bear. But maybe there could be some carnivorous creatures as descendants, depending on conditions.
I've read that the more specialized the animals in the past, the more likely they were to go extinct (like saber-toothed tigers), while the more general creatures (like less specialized carnivores) were more likely to be the ancestors of subsequent types. I'm not sure how a sheep fits into that idea.
So I think to myself, where would I look for new code that has been added to the genome? Let’s say I want to find a new gene that the bear kind has, and the wolf kind doesn’t. We know there are genetic differences. But what kind of genetic differences can we expect
to find? The bear and the wolf (or dog) have the same basic cell types, structures, proteins. The differences which result in the bear skeleton vs. the wolf skeleton, or the bear teeth vs. the wolf teeth, are probably difference in regulation, differences that affect how far something grows or how long it grows, differences in timing of development more than differences in structural proteins. That’s why I wonder what kind of additions you think there should be. There isn’t going to be anything new, just differences in how the existing genes are expressed. The proteins may be slightly different in their amino acid sequence, the genes might be slightly different in their nucleotide sequence, but I don’t think you would count that as an addition. So I think you are claiming there should be a change in the genome that it is not logical to expect.
Okay, let’s go farther back than the wolf and the bear. What about the difference between mammals and their reptilian ancestors? Mammals have hair instead of scales, so maybe there will be a new gene for hair? Well there may be different genes; I am not able to say there aren’t. But hair is made from keratin, and scales are also made from keratin. And feathers are made from keratin. So what the research shows is several clusters of slightly differing types of keratin molecules. The keratin molecules have evolved; you can make a tree showing the similarities of the keratin molecules just as you can make a tree showing the relationship of vertebrates. So keratin supports evolution, but it’s not a new molecule added to the genome when mammals developed hair. There may be additions of new types of keratin molecules, but they’re still keratin. So is that an addition to the genome or not? (I could go on reading about formation of scales, feathers, hair; there is so much detail to read about.)
Mammals have milk, so I tried to look at milk proteins. There are several types of casein molecules. I couldn’t find a source that reported casein before mammals, but this paper seems to be describing an origin of casein from other proteins. I got tired and didn’t read it, but you can look at it if you want to.
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12646701
Here’s another related one about the inactivation of yolk genes in mammals with something about casein:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18351802
(I’m stopping the post here because it's too tiring.)
Hmmm, those links may not post correctly.
should be:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article
render.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=12646701
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/article
render.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18351802
I watched the video on the CSE site, Weird - they think evolution of lots of traits can happen, and it is even planned that way. And they think it can happen really fast. But they have this mental block about changes between kinds. It's the same mechanism, changes in genes.
If you ever get bored, you could type pubmed into Google and go to the pubmed home page. If you put different words into the search box, you'll be able to read abstracts and even some whole papers in the scientific literature. On the far right of the pubmed menu bar you can click on 'books'. This takes you to a list of biology-related books and textbooks that you can read free online. The format is a little awkward - you have to put in search terms. But there's lots to read. One book you could look at is "Developmental Biology". If you go to that book, you might try entering 'hox' into the search box. Maybe I'll post a quote from the book, later, but if I don't, the hox genes are interesting.
Another book you could look at is "Genomes". I might post a quote from that book too. But if I don't get around to it, at least I've given you a source.
Post a Comment