Modern technology is revealing more and more about our genetic make up.
How does genetics point to design?
This week on Creation Magazine LIVE!
Welcome to Creation Magazine LIVE!
My name is Richard Fangrad.
and I'm Calvin Smith.
This week on Creation Magazine LIVE our topic is how does genetics point to design?
Well the field of genetics and evolution, they have kind of been in conflict, they've been enemies from the beginning of both concepts.
Gregor Mendel, the father of genetics, and Charles Darwin, the father of modern evolution,
were contemporaries.
At the same time that Darwin was claiming that creatures could change into other creatures,
Mendel was showing that even individual characteristics remain constant.
Right, while Darwin's ideas were based on erroneous and untested ideas about inheritance,
Mendel's conclusions were based on experimentation.
Only by ignoring the total implications of modern genetics has it been possible to maintain
the fiction of evolution.
To help us understand biology based on creation rather than evolution, let's sample some
of the evidence from genetics, arranged under the four supposed sources of variation which
are: environment, recombination, mutation, and creation. We'll have a look at those four.
OK let's start with environment.
This refers to all of the external factors which influence a creature during its lifetime.
For example, one person may have darker skin than another simply because they're exposed
to more sunshine for example. OK, all right.
Another may have larger muscles because he exercises more.
Such environmentally-caused variations generally have no importance to the history of life,
because of course they cease to exist when their owners die; those traits aren't passed on.
In the middle 1800s, some scientists like Lamarck for example, believed that variations caused by
the environment could be inherited.
Charles Darwin accepted this fallacy, and it no doubt made it easier for him to believe
that one creature could change into another.
He thus explained the origin of the giraffe's long neck in part through, "the inherited
effects of increased use of parts".
In seasons of limited food supply, Darwin reasoned that giraffes would stretch their necks
for the high leaves, supposedly resulting in longer necks being passed on to their offspring.
And now we know of course that that doesn't work at all.
Right. Well let's look at recombination.
This basically involves shuffling genes and is the reason that children resemble their
parents very closely but are not exactly like one another.
The discovery of the principles of recombination was Gregor Mendel's great contribution to
the science of genetics.
Mendel showed that while traits might be hidden for a generation they were not usually lost,
and when, what seemed to be new traits appeared, it was because their genetic factors had been
there all along.
Right. Recombination makes it possible for there to be limited variation within the created kinds.
But it is limited because virtually all of the variations are produced by a reshuffling
of the genes that are already there.
Yes, for example, from 1800, plant breeders tried to increase the sugar content of the
sugar beet.
And they were very successful.
Over some 75 years of selective breeding it was possible to increase the sugar content
from 6 percent to 17 percent.
But there the improvement stopped, and further selection didn't increase the sugar content. Why?
Because all of the genes for sugar production had been gathered into a single variety and
no further increase was possible.
Its like Darwin's finches he observed on the Galápagos islands.
In this single group, we can see wide variation in appearance and in life-style among these birds.
Now Darwin provided what is likely a correct interpretation, Darwin was right about a number of things, of how the finches came to
be the way they are.
A few individuals he said were probably blown to the islands from the mainland, the South American mainland,
and today's finches are descendants of those pioneers.
Absolutely. Probably what happened. Yes.
However, while Darwin saw the finches as an example of evolution, we can now recognize
they're merely as the result of recombination within a single created kind.
The pioneer finches brought with them enough genetic variability to be sorted into
the varieties we see today.
That's not evolution of course because it doesn't involve the creation of new genetic information. I don't know how many times...And that's the key...we need to repeat this.
If you are going to turn a microbe into a man you have to add new genetic information for forms, functions and features that didn't exist before, not separating
genetic information already in existence. And that's what science never shows. Right.
Now when we get back we'll continue to talk about another source of variation in living
things, mutation. And we'll do that when we get back...
Does the human Y chromosome suggest that men are headed for extinction?
In 2003, an Oxford University geneticist claimed that the human Y chromosome was "crumbling
before our very eyes" and that the demise of men was imminent.
Since this time, other researchers have pointed out that these doomsday predictions were overstated.
For instance, the Y chromosome has a unique mechanism for correcting harmful mutations.
Nevertheless, the Y chromosome certainly shows signs of overall decay, as do the other chromosomes.
Human genetic decay is a real phenomenon, but it flies in the face of evolutionary ideas.
According to evolutionists, all the complex coded information in our genomes supposedly
arose through a slow accumulation of random changes called mutations.
However, what we see with the Y chromosome is that such natural processes consistently
degrade the genetic instructions, as opposed to creating them.
Since the time of Adam, we live in a decaying world, just as the Bible says.
To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website Creation.com.
Well if you've just tuned in, this week we are talking about genetics and how it demonstrates
design in living things.
We've been talking about various mechanisms for variation in living things and as we said before the break, mutations are next. Let's get into mutations.
OK, well first of all, what are mutations right? Good place to start, let's start there.
Mutations are mistakes in the genetic copying process.
Every living cell has intricate molecular machinery designed for accurately copying DNA, that's the genetic molecule.
So as this copying process takes place, mistakes do occur, we live in a sin cursed world, things don't replicate perfectly,
and even though they happen they don't happen very often.
Once in every 10,000–100,000 copies, a gene will contain a mistake. A spelling mistake.
Now the cell has machinery, amazing machinery for error correcting these mistakes, but some mutations still slip through.
What kinds of changes are produced by mutations?
Some have no effect at all, or produce a small change, a change that may have no appreciable
effect on the creature.
But many mutations have a significant effect on their owners.
Now based on the creation model, what kind of effect would we expect from random mutations,
from genetic mistakes?
Well we'd expect virtually all of those that make a difference to be harmful, to
make the creatures that possess them less successful than before.
And this prediction is borne out pretty convincingly.
And here are some examples that are going to help illustrate this.
Geneticists began breeding the fruit fly for example, soon after the turn
of the century, and since 1910 when the first mutation was reported, some 3,000 mutations
have been identified.
All of the mutations are harmful or neutral; none of them produce a more successful fruit
fly—exactly as predicted by the creation model. Right, now when we say most of them would be harmful, even the ones that are neutral in these flies
or in any organism, as they continue to gather, eventually they will become negative in the sense that you are just degrading the entire bit of information.
Right, the information coded there is being degraded by these mutations even if it's not borne out in the physical structures...It's like rust on a car, eventually it's going to
get you. So is there then, are we saying there is no such thing as a beneficial mutation?
Well yes, there is.
A beneficial mutation is simply one that makes it possible for its possessors to contribute
more offspring to the future generations than ones that don't have that mutation. So how does that work? Well
for example Darwin, he called attention to wingless beetles on the island of Madeira.
For if you have a beetle living on a windy island, wings can be a definite disadvantage, because creatures
in flight, they are more likely to be blown into the sea. Blown off into the ocean.
Yes, so mutations producing a loss of flight could be beneficial, could be helpful.
And the example of the sightless cave fish would be a similar example.
Eyes are quite vulnerable to injury, and so a creature that lives in a pitch dark environment would
benefit from mutations that would replace the eye with maybe a scar-like tissue, reducing that vulnerability to injury and disease.
In the world of light, having no eyes would be a big handicap, but is no disadvantage
in a dark cave.
While these mutations produce a drastic and beneficial change, it is important to notice
that always it involves less genetic information and never a gain.
We don't observe the reverse occurring, namely wings or eyes being produced on creatures
which never had the genetic information for them in the first place.
So Natural selection is the obvious fact that some varieties of creatures are going to be
more successful than others, it's pretty basic, and so they will contribute more offspring to future generations.
A favorite example of natural section is the peppered moth in England, years ago.
As far as anyone knows, the moth has always existed in two basic varieties, speckled and
solid black.
Right, and in pre-industrial England, many of the tree trunks were light in colour and this
provided a camouflage for the speckled variety, this is the story, and the birds tended to prey more heavily
on the black variety.
Moth collections showed many more speckled than black ones.
When the Industrial Age came to England, pollution darkened the tree trunks, so the black variety
was hidden, and the speckled variety was conspicuous.
Soon there were many more black moths than speckled.
Now by the way...And that was in textbooks for many years as hey, look, this is evolution happening... and this research that we're talking about here actually is very
dubious at best, studies showed that moths don't even rest on trees during the day and there's a lot of fabrication going on, but we'll save that for another day.
So as populations encounter changes in the environment, such as the examples just described or as
the result of migration into a new area, natural selection favours the combinations of traits
which will make the creatures more successful in that new environment.
This might be considered as the positive role of natural selection.
The negative role of natural selection is seen in eliminating or minimizing harmful
mutations in a population when they occur.
When we get back we'll cover the one source of variation we haven't talked about yet;
and that's of course; Creation.
When we return…
Are you skeptical about Christianity?
Perhaps you're a Christian but know someone who won't consider Christianity.
"Christianity for Skeptics" is one of CMI's most popular books.
Written by Drs Steve Kumar and Jonathan Sarfati, this powerful resource refutes many attacks
on the Christian faith.
It contains cutting edge research, solid theology and a summary of the Christian roots of science.
Questions about Islam, atheism, suffering, evidence for God, and more are answered.
Full of bright, catchy illustrations and a sleek, modern style, this book draws in any reader.
Purchase this resource, and many others at creation.com
Welcome back. On this week's episode we are talking about how does the study of genetics point to design? That's our topic today.
Now the one source of variation we haven't talked about yet is of course Creation.
And the reason we're going to talk about it is that the first three sources of variation
we discussed are woefully inadequate to account for the diversity of life we see on earth today.
Right, now an essential feature of the creation model is God having placed considerable genetic
variety in each created kind at the beginning.
Only then can we explain the possible origin of horses, donkeys, and zebras for example from the same
kind; of lions, tigers, and leopards from the same kind; and some 118 or more varieties of the
domestic dogs, as well as the wild dogs, jackals, foxes, wolves, dingos, coyotes, that type of thing, from the same kind.
Right. You've got a whole bunch of information, you split it up and you get different varieties of the same kind.
It all makes sense. Yes, and as each kind obeyed the Creator's command to be fruitful and multiply, the chance
processes of recombination and the more purposeful process of natural selection caused each kind
to subdivide into the vast array that we see them today.
The way to understand variation and speciation is through the removal and rearrangement of
genetic information within the original genomes created with an excess of genetic elements. Lots of traits there originally.
These genomes initially contained all of the mechanisms required to quickly respond and adapt to changing environments. Programmed adaptation type of
a thing. They provided organisms with the tools needed to invade many distinct, different niches of environment and so on, and were ideal
for the swift colonization of all corners of the world.
These multifunctional genomes, and I think we've used this analogy before, it can kind of be compared to a Swiss army knife.
A Swiss knife contains a lot of different functions and they are not immediately necessary in a particular
environment; but some of them are extremely handy in the mountains, others in the woods,
still others maybe for opening bottles and cans, or tools for making a fire.
So depending on where you are, you may require different sets of functions. And animals can be like that too.
In a similar way, depending on where the organism lives, it demands different functions from its genome.
The environment then determines what part of the non-essential genome is under constraint
and it is only this part that will be conserved.
Now if we can cross-breed a zebra and a horse (to produce a 'zorse'), a lion and a tiger
(a liger or tigon), or a false killer whale and a dolphin (a wholphin), what does this
tell us about the original kinds of animals that God created?
Well, it means that the animals that can hybridize descended from the same created kind.
If two animals or two plants can hybridize then they must belong to the same original
created kind.
If the hybridizing species are from different genera in a family, it suggests that the whole
family might have come from the one created kind originally.
If the genera are in different families within an order, it suggests that maybe the whole
order may be derived from the original created kind. We can reason in that particular way.
So God created all kinds, or basic types, of creatures and plants with the ability to produce
variety in their offspring.
These varieties come from recombinations of the existing genetic information created in
the beginning, through the marvellous reproductive method created by God.
Since the Fall, some variations also occurred through degenerative changes caused by mutations.
The variations allow for the descendants of the created kinds to adapt to different environments
and 'fill the earth', as God commanded. Its brilliant engineering actually.
If genera represent the created kinds, then Noah took less than, here's how it relates to Noah's Flood, took less than 20,000 land animals on
the Ark; far fewer if kinds originally gave rise to the families that we talk about today.
From these kinds came many 'daughter species', which generally each have less information
(and are thus more specialized) than the parent population on the Ark.
Properly understood, adaptation by natural selection (which gets rid of information)
does not involve the addition of new complex DNA information.
Thus, students should not be taught that it demonstrates 'evolution happening', as
if it showed the process by which fish could eventually turn into people.
Understanding what God has told us in Genesis provides a sound foundation for thinking about
the classification of living things and how the great diversity we see around us today has come about.
When we get back we're going to talk about a specific example that support what we've been talking about here.
Evolutionists have long proposed that almost all our DNA—98%— is junk; that it has no function whatsoever. They said this because evolution needs lots of junk DNA for three reasons.
Firstly, there are far too many mutations, which would cause our extinction, but if nearly all of them occurred in junk DNA, then they are less of a problem.
Secondly, if mutations---accidental changes---created us, then accidents cannot create DNA with 100% function; this would be unbelievable.
Thirdly, if mutations created us, they must have occurred in lots of DNA that had no function, to allow lots of experimentation without damaging the existing functions.
However modern science reveals that nearly all of our DNA actually has a function, and this is a huge problem for evolution.
Creationist scientists doubted the junk DNA idea all along, although because we live in a fallen world, they expected to find some damaged DNA that might appear to be junk—but not much.
To find out more from Creation Ministries International visit our website Creation.com.
Welcome, our subject this week is how does genetics point to design?
We've explained that the creation model says that, rather than, simple creatures with
limited amounts of genetic information being built up slowly with more and more sophisticated
variants over millions of years, rather, God started creatures out with an amazing amount
of variability, genetic information there, so that they could adapt to whatever environments they encountered down the road.
We've got a specific example here to show just that.
The multiple genomes of Arabidopsis.
In 2007, Science reported on the genome of Arabidopsis thaliana, a flowering plant of
the mustard family with a small genome that is suitable for extensive genetic studies.
This report was of particular interest because it showed the genomes of 19 individual plants
collected from 19 individual strands, ranging from sub-arctic regions to the tropics.
Now according to a commentary summarizing the results of this painstaking analysis
" … about four percent of the reference genome either looks very different in the
wild varieties, or cannot be found at all.
Almost every tenth gene was so defective that it could not fulfill its normal function anymore!
Results such as these raise fundamental questions.
For one, they qualify the value of the model genomes sequenced so far.
'There isn't such a thing as the genome of a species,' says Weigel.
He adds, 'The insight that the DNA sequence of a single individual is by far not sufficient
to understand the genetic potential of a species also fuels current efforts in human genetics."
Now that's amazing because what he's saying is look, there is no such thing as a genome of a single species. What they're finding all over the world, these same
plants are adapted to different environments but the degraded remains of genetic information that could allow it to survive in different environment remains
in there. But because it's not being used, mutations accumulate and it's just degrading, but it did originally have the information so that plant could have been here
and this plant could have been there. It's just amazing.
Yes and continuing on they even said this; "That even in a minimal genome every tenth
gene is dispensable has been a great surprise", admits Weigel.'
Wow. Now among the 19 strands of Arabidopsis we find there's dramatic genetic differences.
We observe genetic losses as well as genetic novelties.
Although the dispensability of genes is easy to understand with respect to genetic redundancy,
the observed novelties are much harder to conceive unless we accept that all observed
novelties are not novelties at all but genetic tools that have resided in the genome since
the day Arabidopsis was created.
The genetic 'novelties' may simply reflect environmental constraints that have helped
preserve these genetic tools.
There is indeed 'no such thing as the genome of a species', because what we observe today
are the rearranged and adapted genomes that were all derived from an original genome that contained
all the genetic tools we find scattered throughout the population.
The 'great surprise' is only a great surprise with respect to the Darwinian paradigm.
With a pluripotent Arabidopsis genome in mind, the data are not surprising at all.
It is in accord with what we might expect from the perspective of a rapid re-population
of the earth after the Flood. Yes, there we go.
Modern Arabidopsis genomes look as if they were derived from much larger genomes containing
all kinds of excess genetic elements—both coding and non-coding, so repetitive sequences—that
can easily be lost, shuffled or duplicated.
The 'dispensable genes' outlined here can be understood as genetic redundancies
originally present in the genomes that over time steadily fell apart, as you mentioned there in those
nineteen individuals, because the environment didn't select for them.
Yes the study strongly suggests that isolated strands of plants originated as a result of
loss of genetic redundancies, duplication and rearrangement of genetic elements.
The dispensability of the genes of Arabidopsis could have been predicted because
most of the genes still present in the individual genomes are redundant.
These observations strongly favour this abundant genome hypothesis, if you will, that creationists put forward.
So, known examples of rapid speciation in modern times are in perfect accord with the Bible—just
variation within the created kinds—all known examples of modern-day speciation involve
a loss or reshuffling of existing genetic information.
And if speciation is not evidence for evolution, reversing it obviously has nothing to do with
undoing evolution.
If all it takes to cause two species to become one is a reshuffling of genes, then a gene
reshuffle presumably caused the original species to split into isolated species.
Since this involves no new information, it can't legitimately be used as evidence that
yeasts can become yaks, you know, if you give it enough time.
And we'll be back in just one moment...
The vigorous promotion of evolution as established fact is causing many Christians to question the biblical creation account.
And some non-Christians won't consider Christianity because they believe the Bible has been disproved
by science.
That's where Creation magazine comes in!
Creation magazine is a family friendly publication packed with cutting edge science that supports
the Bible, presented in an easy to understand format by some of the leading experts in their
fields of study.
Visit Creation.com to subscribe today!
Well welcome back, this is the 'In the News' section here on Creation Magazine LIVE! and this article here we are about to read from is called Scientists observe wasps
evolving into new species. And this is going to relate directly to what we were talking about earlier. And it also speaks to once again how
in the news and so often people are exposed to the concept of evolution saying look, we're observing evolution! Now so often you see these conflicting
reports; 'We've observed evolution', 'Evolution hasn't been observed'. So it just goes to show that what they're talking about here is speciation involving natural
selection and genetic mutation but not evolution...Which we agree with its what we've always agreed with, we write papers on it and a lot more papers recently.
So this isn't observing evolution. Not evolution at all. So they say, "Scientists have documented three species of wasps turning into three new species, an unusual
close-up view of rapid evolution in action. In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, the team found that evolutionary changes in
one species of fruit fly triggered a cascade of evolutionary changes in three species of wasps that are predators of the fruit fly.
As a result, not only did the fruit fly evolve into a new species, but so did each of the wasps. The speciation process took a mere 160 years. The research sheds
light not only on how some new life-forms originate, but also how quickly it can happen. 'We tend to think of evolution occurring over millions of years,'
said Scott Egan, evolutionary biologist at Rice University and co-author of the study. 'What jumped out at me is that [a new species] can emerge in contemporary time.'"
Let's just stop there and comment a little bit. They're surprised that speciation can happen quickly, not a surprise to us at all, in fact it's predicted by the creation
model. Right. And even Old Earth Creationists have accused Young Earth Creationists of believing in even more rapid evolution than even the evolutionists do
because they say if you went from two of every, seven of some creatures on the Ark and now we've got all these different species, you guys believe in rapid evolution!
Well number one, speciation is not evolution, we've talked about that. It's not evolution, there's this terminology, we need to properly define terms.
And the folks in this article they are talking about, this is "an unusual close-up view of rapid evolution in action". Its rapid speciation. Speciation.
But that's not evolution. These wasps didn't turn into anything other than wasps and these fruit flies didn't turn into anything other than fruit flies.
It's a re-shuffling, a recombination of genetic material, exactly what we were explaining earlier on this show, this isn't evolution in action.
Let's continue, "Speciation typically occurs when biological variations between individuals in a species allow some of them to live in a different environment.
If they thrive there, it drives divergence from the original pool, and a new species is born. But can such speciation in one group of organisms also trigger
speciation in another group of organisms? The latest study is among the first to document that it does." So that is fascinating.
Yes, and once again it just shows that science actually supports the creation model. We'll see you next time on Creation Magazine LIVE!
For more infomation >> HOW DOES HE DO THIS! - Duration: 10:48. 
For more infomation >> How To Increase Your Hair Growth 10 Times Faster Overnight | Home Remedy Zone - Duration: 4:52. 
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét