Specialized Genes Confirm Creationism

According to evolutionary theory, housekeeping genes are shared with other living things, because of common decent. Evolutionary theory suggests that tiny progressions will eventually lead to other living things. But as scientists sequence more genomes from different animals, they discover something which isn’t that friendly towards evolution and it’s been 20 years and counting for coming up with an explanation which would be more friendly toward evolution.

What scientists have been discovering within the genome project are specialized genes or best known as orphan genes. What is an orphan gene? An orphan gene has coding in it that is unique only to that animal and no other. These DNA sequences appear suddenly and fully functional without any trace of evolutionary ancestry. This is why I refer to it as “specialized”. It’s been a surprise for scientists who believe in evolution. Orphan genes are not easily discovered. It takes careful research because the genomic world is very massive. There is also no standardized method in which to use, so it varies from researcher to researcher.

Orphan genes are found in humans too, in fact there was a recent discovery which increased the differences between humans and chimps. Scientists found over 1300 orphan genes which are completely different between humans and chimps. It is possible they may find more as research techniques get better and covering more of the body. In this recent discovery, the focus for these orphan genes were found in the liver, heart, brain, and testes. In ants, researchers have found over 28,000 orphan genes that were specialized only for ants and not other insects.

While orphan genes cause more confusion in the theory of evolution, creationism on the other hand finds these discoveries intriguing because it helps to understand the patterns of genetic diversity related within a created kind. Creationism holds to the view that there are only variants within a kind but no kind changing into a totally different species which is what evolutionary theory claims. Such precise genetic arrangements are truly amazing!

Evolutionists Lose Human Eye Debate

How many times have creationists heard this from sources like the USS Clueless...”Occasionally I see creationists point to the human eye as a miracle of design, as if this somehow is evidence of divine origin for the human form. Unfortunately, from an engineering perspective, the human eye is seriously suboptimal. It simply isn’t that good a design.” I would say, quite a number of times, especially from those like Kenneth Miller who is a Professor at Brown University who argues for signs of bad design which they say disproves creationism so they use the human eye as an example. Why? Because our eyes’ have photoreceptor cells which face away from incoming light and the optic nerve extends over them thus supposedly making it “suboptimal” (without showing how it could be improved) because it blocks some light.

What generally always happens with these arguments from evolutionists, they get shot down by advancements in science either by creationist scientists or by their own data or both. Sometimes it takes many years. The human eye debate has been written about and debated about for many years. Creationists as well as the modern intelligent design movement have been arguing for years that the human eye is well designed here are two examples the first one being from the modern intelligent design movement

“The photoreceptors in the human eye are oriented away from incoming light and placed behind nerves through which light must pass before reaching the photoreceptors. Why? A visual system needs three things: speed, sensitivity, and resolution. The inverse wiring does not affect speed. Nor does it affect resolution, except for a tiny blind spot in each eye. You don’t usually notice it because your brain’s visual harmonization system easily compensates for the blind spot. You need to do special exercises to discover it. What about sensitivity? Sensitivity requires an inverted retina. Retinal cells require the most oxygen of any cells in the human body, so they need lots of blood. But blood cells absorb light. In fact, if blood cells invade the retinal cells, irreversible blindness may result. By facing away from the light, retinal cells can be nourished by blood vessels that do not block the light. They can still be so sensitive that they respond to a single photon, the smallest unit of light.” -2008

The second one being strictly from ICR, one of the main websites that advocate creationism…

“Research by ophthalmologists has clearly shown why the human retina must employ what is called the “inverted” design. An inverted retina is where the photoreceptors face away from the light, forcing the incoming light to travel through the front of the retina to reach the photoreceptors. The opposite placement (where the photoreceptors face the front of the eye) is called a “verted” design. One of the many reasons for the inverted design is, behind the photoreceptors lies a multifunctional and indispensable structure, theretinal pigment epithelium (Martínez-Morales 2004, p. 766). This monolayered tissue contains the black pigment melanin that absorbs most of the light not captured by the retina. This design has the very beneficial effect of preventing light from being reflected off the back of the eye onto the retina, which would degrade the visual image.”

“The photoreceptors (rods and cones) must also face away from the front of the eye in order to be in close contact with the pigment epithelium on the choroid, which supplies the photoreceptors with blood. This arrangement allows a “steady stream of the vital molecule retinal” to flow to the rods and cones without which vision would be impossible (Kolb 2003, p. 28). The verted design, claimed by Miller to be superior, would place the photoreceptors away from their source of nutrition, oxygen, and retinal (the choroid). This design would cause major problems because rods and cones require an enormous amount of energy for their very high metabolism required in functioning, maintenance, and repair. In addition, because of phototoxicity damage, the rods and cones must completely replace themselves approximately every seven days or so.”

As you know, evolutionists have been arguing that the human eye was designed poorly until now…Israel Institute of Technology, a think tank for evolution  says they have discovered why the human eye is wired backwards and it’s not because of a poor design…

“Previous experiments with mice had suggested that Müller glia cells, a type of metabolic cell that crosses the retina, play an essential role in guiding and focusing light scattered throughout the retina. To test this, Ribak and his colleagues ran computer simulations and in-vitro experiments in a mouse model to determine whether colors would be concentrated in these metabolic cells. They then used confocal microscopy to produce three-dimensional views of the retinal tissue, and found that the cells were indeed concentrating light into the photoreceptors…”

“The retina is not just the simple detector and neural image processor, as believed until today,” Ribak added. “Its optical structure is optimized for our vision purposes.”

Even before this research came out, their has been attempts to build image sensors that are base on its design of biological retinas. If retinas are really that poor in design, then why would engineers be trying to make image sensors that are based on the retinas design?    Since the research turned out to confirm creationism rather than evolution, researchers at Israel Institute of Technology has to bluff about its significance by claiming that “from a practical standpoint, the wiring of the human eye — a product of our evolutionary baggage — doesn’t make a lot of sense” is really confirmation of evolution…lol

Can you imagine if science came out with evidence of a bad design of the human eye and turned around and said, “Even though a bad design doesn’t make much sense, but this is a great product of creationism.” It wouldn’t be considered science right? Neither is the researchers view on evolution of the eye. These stories about evolution holds no scientific ground! We are blessed with amazingly designed eyes!

Creationist: Ken Ham vs Evolutionist: Bill Nye

“Is creationism a viable model of origins in today’s modern scientific era?”  And the answer is, yes…More on this in a moment. Neither side was not overly happy about the debate. But the debtors themselves were happy about their performance.

In recent years atheists have avoided debating creationists because they want to keep people in the dark about other viewpoints besides evolution. Most people have some form of spirituality to them, which is another reason, despite the fact that evolution dominates the science realm in public schools.

Public debates are never that easy, you have a limited time to present your view and a limited time to respond. So in preparation, each debtor has a goal to get out certain amount of information that want to share to the public and avoid going on the defensive.

The real debate normally happens afterwards when both sides post responses to content during the debate which is going to happen here as well. Bill Nye what I term as old school evolutionist who believes in uniformity of both past and present conditions so one of his arguments against creationism is using ice cores claiming each layer represents one year.

Samples taken in around the same area, do not always agree with each other. Snowfall varies, just recently parts of the east coast in the United States got a lot of snow, while parts of the midwest didn’t get nearly that much. Here is an interesting story, during World War II, six P-38 lightening fighters encountered bad weather and their only hope was to land on the east coast of Greenland, one crash landed, and the rest were able to land with their wheels. The pilots escaped with minor injuries.

They became known as the legendary Lost Squadron because it wasn’t until 1988, when scientists were able to locate the planes under the ice! Evolutionists were very surprised on how deep those planes were in the ice which were 250 feet below! Why? Because 250 feet of ice core would represent thousands of years in evolutionary time. And those planes were of course not thousands of years old, but rather the planes were in that location in Greenland for only 46 years! So they were amazed at the ice build-up in such a short period of time! The Bible has no problem with reality, but rather such things as this confirm it.

Organic material degrades in a short period of time, this is a known fact based on reality! When soft tissue was discovered in dinosaur fossils, this made another scientific case that the earth is thousands of years old rather than 3.5 billion years old. Since numerous discoveries of soft tissue has been discovered, it is evolutionists who are tying to come up with ideas on how to defy the natural rate of organic degradation.

Like many evolutionists, Bill Nye makes the assumption that if fossils of animals are found together, that means they lived together. Fossils of coelacanth and whale fossils have never been found together, but we know they live together in our present time. Lions were known to dwell in Israel in ancient times, but no known fossils of Lions have ever been discovered in Israel!  There are many other fossils out of place which confirms a global flood!

Speaking of the flood, Bill Nyle in his criticism of Noah’s ark, claimed he had fish on the ark along with insects and one-cell animals. There was no indication from the Bible that Noah was commanded to include fish and one-cell animals (obviously Bill didn’t read it). I suspect Nyle was trying to use something creation scientists use when debating evolution and that is the more specialized complexity, the more unlikely it never happened such as DNA where another language (code) was discovered, making something already complex even more which is a great thing to learn! There is some amazing things happening with the study of DNA.

Now Bill Nyle uses an outdated argument concerning the supposed transition of species by using Tiktaalik as an example. Richard Dawkins a well known atheist for attacking Christianity also uses Tiktaalik in his book called…“The Greatest Show On Earth”  as the perfect fossil but is it? Scientists have discovered other fossils with similar tracks of four legged creatures (see here in science magazine) all over the world and these fossils were dated in the evolutionary time frame as 18 million older which makes Tiktaalik a non-transition form as stated in science magazine!  

“We thought we’d pinned down the origin of limbed tetrapods,” says Jennifer Clack of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. “We have to rethink the whole thing.”

In a way, I cannot blame Bill too much for using outdated material, because when one types in Tiktaalik in google, you read on he right hand side a brief summary which claims it is a transitional form despite the fact that it’s been falsified for almost four years.

While the debate wasn’t perfect as Ken Ham could have used information theory, soft tissue, and other scientific data, he did a decent job under the circumstances.

What Do Bats And Whales Have In Common?

Both mammals have a sophisticated sensing mechanism but how could that be in the evolutionary framework when both these animals grew up in completely different environments with different lineages and are vastly different in size. At the University at Southern Denmark, they write…

“Sperm whales weigh up to 50 tons, and the smallest bat barely reaches a gram. Nevertheless, the two species share the same success story: They both have developed the ability to use echolocation – a biological sonar – for hunting. Now Danish researchers show that the biosonar of toothed whales and bats share surprisingly many similaritieseven though they live in very different environments and vary extremely in size.”

“Researchers from the two Danish universities, Aarhus University and University of Southern Denmark, have now studied the acoustic properties of the technique behind echolocation in bats and whales in the wild. Previous studies of their abilities to locate and catch prey have primarily been based on laboratory tests, and the studies in the wild now provide a much more realistic picture of how the animals use echolocation.” 

What happens when evolution gets falsified in this manner, you invoke “convergent evolution” even though as it says in current biology…“the exact evolutionary relationship of bats to their closest mammalian relatives is poorly understood due to their unique morphological features associated with flight, a lack of intermediate forms, and a poor fossil record.” 

What do they mean by “poor fossil record”? Isn’t the fossil record assumed to be the best evidence for evolution? After all when the oldest bat fossils were found back in 2008, the likes of phys.org, BBC, and National Geographic made claims such as, “the fossils represent a breakthrough in the understanding of bat evolution!” and labeled as ” a missing link that “demonstrates that the animals evolved the ability to fly before they could echolocate.”

There has been a long debate among evolutionists on how a bat could evolve rather than if it really did evolved such as the development of the sonar system bats use to navigate and hunt their prey. Did the echolocation come first or did flight in the evolutionary story. Most evolutionists believe that echolocation came first then flight which these new discoveries of bat fossils falsifies that idea.

But these old fossils considered to be the current oldest discovered so far resembles modern bats that lack echolocation so what features made it primitive? Primitive in my book would be a lacking an advance design compared to a modern one. So the appearance lacks a primitive design which leads them to only one conclusion to build a whole theory around using circular reasoning and that is where the fossil was placed in the strata.

There is also confirmation about creationism in this discovery. This supposed oldest primitive bat is still what? Answer:100 percent bat which even resembles a modern one! There are no transitions of bats with all their specialized adaptations in the fossil record and nothing related to the bat has ever been found in the fossil record and yet evolutionists have this story about bats evolving into other animals. The second quote from danish researchers is operational science, the study on how something works which is clearly real science not a made up story about how it evolved!

Mark Armitage’s Termination From University

We are living in a time where it’s very exciting to be a creationist! Research has been turning up enormous amounts of data to learn from. But we are living in a time where a scientist can publish a peer-reviewed paper and then get terminated shortly thereafter that paper gets published because it casts doubt on Darwinian evolution.

Evolutionists never looked for soft tissue in ancient fossils for most of the theory’s existence because soft tissue degrades quickly. But in 2005, when Dr. Mary Schweitzer first demonstrated the existence of soft tissue which she found by accident, she couldn’t believe her eyes because it was assumed to be 65 million years old! Evolutionists had to revise and then invoke a miracle in evolution. So scientists are now conducting research to find more soft tissue and it’s turning up all over the place!

The peer-review paper that was written by Mark Armitage and Kevin Anderson, consisted of a fossil assumed to be 65 million years old which is a horn from a Triceratops horridus specimen. The researchers wanted to know if there was any soft tissue contained in this fossil, so they eliminated all the hard stuff by soaking the fossil for a month in a mild acid in order to if there was anything soft inside.

What they discovered was quite exciting! Strips of soft tissue. To study it further in more detail, the researchers one being Mark Armitage, put the tissue under a scanning electron microscope which means they can share what they observed. What did they see, you ask. They discovered circular Haversian systems which are compact bone made of cylindrical structures formed by bone cells. Haversian systems are found in many bones of most mammals and some bird, reptile, and amphibian species.

compact bone

This is quite amazing, while still using the microscope they looked in the canals and the researchers (authors of the peer-review paper) noticed the tissues were filled with structures which strongly resemble red blood cells! It’s incredible that a bone cell can last thousands of years, but 65 million years? No! While it’s true evolutionists will come up with some sort of sort story which is not observable, on how bone cells can be preserved over millions of years, this new discovery argues against evolutionists with their assumptions of the Hell Creek Formation where this fossil originally came from being millions of years old using the scientific method rather than using total faith in evolutionary theory.  How much harder is it to believe in evolution where cells can be preserved for millions of years without being mineralized?.

Here is the abstract of the paper…

“Soft fibrillar bone tissues were obtained from a supraorbital horn of Triceratops horridus collected at the Hell Creek Formation in Montana, USA. Soft material was present in pre and post-decalcified bone. Horn material yielded numerous small sheets of lamellar bone matrix. This matrix possessed visible microstructures consistent with lamellar bone osteocytes. Some sheets of soft tissue had multiple layers of intact tissues with osteocyte-like structures featuring filipodial-like interconnections and secondary branching.”

“Both oblate and stellate types of osteocyte-like cells were present in sheets of soft tissues and exhibited organelle-like microstructures. SEM analysis yielded osteocyte-like cells featuring filipodial extensions of 18–20 μm in length. Filipodial extensions were delicate and showed no evidence of any permineralization or crystallization artifact and therefore were interpreted to be soft. This is the first report of sheets of soft tissues from Triceratops horn bearing layers of osteocytes, and extends the range and type of dinosaur specimens known to contain non-fossilized material in bone matrix.”

Was Mark Armitage’s termination regrettable, but a vital move by the University in order to maintain consensus of scientists?

Your Intelligently Designed Retina

There are amazing processes which goes on before you can see! Your retina performs an array of multiple digital transformations! A recent study by opthalmologists from the University of Tübingen, Germany has discovered that your eye goes digital. What was thought to be continuous analog signals to the retina are really created spikes (action potentials) that represent on-or-off conditions which is the basis of digital programming!

Currently Biology describes a vast amount of complexity where the eye massages its digitized information for the brain.

Action potentials allow for much faster and temporally more precise signal transmission than graded potentials, thus offering advantages in certain situations…”

“The retina in our eyes is not just a sheet of light sensors that – like a camera chip – faithfully transmits patterns of light to the brain. Rather, it performs complex computations, extracting several features from the visual stimuli, e.g., whether the light intensity at a certain place increases or decreases, in which direction a light source moves or whether there is an edge in the image.”

“To transmit this information reliably across the optic nerve — acting as a kind of a cable — to the brain, the retina reformats it into a succession of stereotypic action potentials – it “digitizes” it. Classical textbook knowledge holds that this digital code – similar to the one employed by computers – is applied only in the retina’s ganglion cells, which send the information to the brain. Almost all other cells in the retina were believed to employ graded, analogue signals. But the Tübingen scientists could now show that, in mammals, already the bipolar cells, which are situated right after the photoreceptors within the retinal network, are able to work in a “digital mode” as well.”

There are at least 8 classes of the bipolar cell patterns that were classified by the researches.  Why would this be considered the end of the dogma? Action potentials have been discovered before, but were considered only rare exceptions rather than the norm. The press release goes on to say that the discovery opens up new questions. But as one reads this, evolution is not even mentioned! Normally they just give credit to evolution or just speculate on the spot, but how could they mention it, considering that they were talking about computer cables with digital codes! These concepts as you know are designed by a thought process rather than a mindless one!

This is a classic example of when science improves that leads to astounding discoveries, nature appears more intelligently designed than ever before! The autonomous bipolar cells cannot “know” nor understand what the brain needs. Bipolar cells require pre-programming in order to send vital information to the brain and have the brain understand that vital information so it could react the right way. Formatting of the signal takes place using a code that the brain is able to understand! And it is required to get there fast, that is why digital was the way to go!

The exquisite interaction of parts here, sending digitally-encoded information down a “cable” of sorts, is truly one of the most amazing and mind-boggling things ever discovered!  We are not talking about just a camera with a chip; rather we are talking about the whole Photoshop!

So when we look at nature, before we think what we are seeing, just think of how many processes it took to get us to see what we are seeing! There is a quite an amazing list of intermediaries which includes; the cornea, the aqueous humor, the lens, the vitrious humor, the rods and cones, the bipolar cells, the retinal ganglion cells, the optic nerve, and who knows what else which has yet to be discovered, has massaged, transformed and formatted the signal from the initial impingement of photons on the cornea!

What Happens When “Divergent Evolution” Gets Falsified?

Classification is very important in evolution for explaining new discoveries which do not match up with its explanation as we shall see in a moment. Darwin’s original tree diagram described “divergent evolution,” which starts with speciation first then followed by variations that make the two branches more and more dissimilar over time. “Homologous” traits, are found on animals on the same branch according to Darwinian evolution because it comes from the same common ancestor.

But what happens when two animals that are discovered on different branches which have “homologous” traits that comes from a different common ancestor? What could be the cause of this falsification of divergent evolution? Many evolutionists would respond, those similar traits are coming from “convergent evolution.”  

So here we see a classification scheme within the framework of evolution using circular reasoning.  If the traits are homologous, that is evidence for evolution,  if they are not similar, that is also considered evidence for evolution. There have been some recent discoveries being published that use this classification scheme of  “convergent evolution.”

Natures News claims that muscles have two origins…

“Jellyfish move using a set of muscles that look remarkably similar to striated muscles in vertebrates. However, new data show that the two muscle types contain different molecules, implying that they evolved independently.”

Increasing complexity to the situation is the fact that comb jellies, on a different branch, also have striated muscles, while most other invertebrates do not! Then the claims escalate to new heights…

“These results suggest that, despite their remarkable physical resemblance, the striated muscles of jellyfish and humans are constructed using a vastly different set of genes. Steinmetz and colleagues have revealed an extraordinary instance of convergent evolution — the evolution of highly similar traits in distantly related organisms.

It gets better, after having a problem trying to get subgenera on the same branch  PLoS ONE discovered “convergent evolution” in twelve subgenera of Appalachian crayfish because of their similarities. Confounding the work of taxonomists who try to figure out what is related to what and what is not related, the paper makes an astonishing  claim that “convergent evolution” is all over the place!

When you discover similarities between, invertebrate animals, plants and vertebrate animals, the evolutionist has a real conundrum going on.  Because all three unrelated groups show similar signaling pathways in their innate immune systems!

In Nature Immunology (which should be a free publication open to all since the taxpayers pay for this research)…

“It is commonly reported that these similarities in innate immunity represent a process of divergent evolution from an ancient unicellular eukaryote that pre-dated the divergence of the plant and animal kingdoms. However, at present, data suggest that the seemingly analogous regulatory modules used in plant and animal innate immunity are a consequence of convergent evolution and reflect inherent constraints on how an innate immune system can be constructed.”

Look at how Ausubel invented an explanatory device to come up with an explanation on why traits on vastly unrelated organisms end up being similar, “nature imposes constraints on how systems can be constructed.”  So if an elephant wants to walk, according to Ausubel, nature will have it grow some legs.  What is wrong with that picture?  A constraint can no more evolve a trait than a keyboard having the ability to create your computer.  An “engineering specification” can no more cause a system to emerge than water creating a boat.

Basically, evolutionists are now trying to force a mindless process with no foresight,   that would cause organisms into the engineering department! The reason why organisms have such an incredible ability to adapt is because it’s “designed”  into the organism by a Creator (namely God) who has advanced knowledge about engineering.  Yet we see evolutionists point to new discoveries where their faith requires them to believe that very complex traits evolved two, three, or more than a dozen times independently!  “Convergent evolution” is a classification scheme used only when “Divergent Evolution” gets falsified! Reclassifying things doesn’t verify a theory, nor explain how nature functions!

In a book, “The Biotic Message” by Walter ReMine, talkes about the universal genetic code in all living things (which is an observable fact), where this same code is used to create complex organisms in hierarchies with similarities across hierarchies and within hierarchies! That my friend is evidence for a Creator!