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!