Search This Blog

Thursday, September 02, 2010

The Earth is how old? Says who? Oh.

Before I post the follow up to the "take my primordial soup, please" post, I wanted to share this information that came from the CMI site.   Creation.com is the site where one of the prime contributors is Jonathan Sarfati, the guy Richard Dawkins and other Darwinists are afraid to debate (and for good reason) and several other top flight scientists who do NOT believe in Chance, the Evolution Fairy.

Don Patten wrote the article below.   Patten has a place beside a great crew of scientists, researchers, scholars, writers, and teachers.  The list only includes small bits of information but you can find more on the members, for instance, here is the Dr. Patten page.  I can relate to his story, I was much older when I came to Christ and then there was a process of first questioning evolution, then investigating it and finally tossing it into the trash barrel along with the Philosopher's Stone and the Northwest Passage and the waterfall at the end of the Earth.


Add to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to RedditAdd to Yahoo MyWebAdd to Stumble UponAdd to MySpaceAdd to LinkedInAdd to Google BookmarksAdd to Mixx

Old-earth or young-earth belief

Which belief is the recent aberration?

CMI takes the stand that the creation is thousands of years old, based on straightforward acceptance of the chronology in Genesis.

Churchian critics accept the billions of years touted today and claim that the ‘young-earth’ view is a recent invention of Protestant ‘fundamentalist’ churches. They claim that various Church Fathers or other ancient authorities wrote things that suggested they did not hold a ‘young-earth’ view.

However, such claims about the Church Fathers and Reformers have been shown to be wrong; for instance, in the rebuttal to the long-ager Hugh Ross, by Mark Van Bebber and Paul Taylor.1 It’s vital to analyse what the scholars of the past actually said, instead of what people claim they said2—see Did early Church leaders and reformers believe the literal creation account given in Genesis? Sometimes a non-specific statement from them about Creation is misinterpreted as claiming that they didn't have a position on the days and timeframe. This is obviously the fallacy of arguing from silence.

It’s worse when clear statements about the Creation days and timeframe are ignored in favor of non-specific ones. The correct practice is to interpret the non-specific passages by the specific ones. Note that, by the same methodology, hundreds of years in the future, someone could find articles by every CMI writer that are not specific on days or the timeframe and, by ignoring their clear statements elsewhere, claim that we don’t have any position on these issues!

Even Augustine cannot remotely be used in support of old-earth beliefs. Even though he allegorized the Days of Creation (and lots of other passages—he was no Hebrew scholar), he tried to compress the days into an instant, which is diametrically opposite to what long-agers claim!

Furthermore, when ancient chronologies are researched, we find that many cultures, not just those based directly on the Bible, attest to an age for the creation of thousands of years. It seems that no serious scholar believed in the old-earth fashion of today. It is very much a modernist invention.

The following comes from Young’s Analytical Concordance to the Holy Bible, first published in 1879. Under ‘Creation’, Young listed dates of Creation compiled by a Dr William Hales,3 who was an expert in chronology. None of them give a date for Creation of more than 9,000 years ago. Note that dates of Creation dates from various non-Christian/non-Jewish sources (India, Egypt, China, pre-Christian Greece, Babylonia, etc.) all testify to an age of thousands of years.4 Furthermore, both Catholic and Protestant scholars agreed on this issue. It seems that no serious chronologist believed in an old earth.

Many of the scholars listed in our table (below) made the chronology of the world a life-long study, involving meticulous cross-matching of ancient records (many of which are not available to us today). These scholars did not obtain these dates by throwing dice! It is only the arrogance of modern man that dismisses this tradition of careful scholarship.

We must underline again the importance of this issue. The old-earth advocates accept the recently fashionable claim that the earth is billions of years old. This ‘age’ is based on radioactive dating. The same ‘dating’ puts the age of fossilized dead animals at up to hundreds of millions of years before people appeared on the scene. These fossils show evidence of violence and suffering—cancer and arthritis can be seen in the fossils, for example (see Genesis: the Curse). So in the old-earth schemes, this death and suffering was going on when God created Adam and Eve, and pronounced everything as ‘very good’ (Genesis 1:31). Hardly!
The Bible clearly teaches that the bad things came into being when Adam and Eve rejected the rule of the Creator over them, and the Curse of death came into effect (Genesis 3:17–19, Romans 8:20–22, etc.). And because of this true history of the world, Jesus, the ‘last Adam’, came into the world to die for the sinful descendants of Adam (Romans 5:12 ff., 1 Cor. 15:21–22, 45).
In short, all attempts to marry the Bible with the old-earth view actually undermine the Gospel.

Date of Creation

(from Young’s Analytical Concordance of the Holy Bible, 1879 8th Edition, 1939—entry under ‘Creation’)
‘Dr Hales, in his work entitled, “A New Analysis of Chronology and Geography, History and Prophecy,”? (vol. 1, p. 210 [published in 1830]), remarks: “In every system of chronology, sacred and profane, the two grand eras—of the Creation of the World, and of the Nativity of Christ—have been usually adopted as standards, by reference to which all subordinate epochs, eras and periods have been adjusted.”? He gives a list of 120 dates, commencing B.C. 6984, and terminating BC 3616, to which this event has been assigned by different authorities, and he admits that it might be swelled to 300. He places it at BC 5411. The date commonly adopted is BC 4004; being that of Ussher, Spanheim, Calmet, Blair, etc., and the one used in the English Bible [KJV].’

‘The following are some of the principal variations:’ (notations regarding dates of compilation or publication, extra information on sources, etc., have been added by CMI).
Source of Creation Date Authority Date BC
Alfonso X (Spain, 1200s) Muller 6984
Alfonso X (Spain, 1200s) Strauchius, Gyles (1632–1682)5 6484
India Gentil, French astronomer c.1760 6204
India Arab records 6174
Babylonia Bailly6 (French astronomer, 1736–1793) 6158
China Bailly 6157
Diogenes Laertius (Greece 3rd Cent.) Playfair 6138
Egypt Bailly 6081
Septuagint (LXX)7 Albufaragi 5586
Josephus (1st Century Jew) Playfair 5555
Septuagint, Alexandrine Scaliger, Joseph (1540–1609)8 5508
Persia Bailly 5507
Chronicle of Axum, Abyssinian Bruce (1700s) 5500
Josephus Jackson 5481
Jackson   5426
Hales
5411
Josephus (1st Century Jew) Hales 5402
India Megasthenes,9 Greek historian (c. 340–282 bc) 5369
Talmudists Petrus Alliacens 5344
Septuagint, Vatican
5270
Bede (673–735) Strauchius 5199
Josephus (1st Century Jew) Univ. Hist. 4698
Samaritan computation Scaliger 4427
Samaritan text Univ. Hist. 4305
Hebrew (Masoretic) text
4161
Playfair and Walker
4008
Ussher, Spanheim, Calmet, Blair, etc.
4004
Kepler10 (1571–1630) Playfair 3993
Petavius (France, 1583–1652)
3984
Melanchthon (1500s) Playfair 3964
Luther (1500s)
3961
Lightfoot
3960
Cornelius a Lapide Univ. Hist. 3951
Scaliger, Isaacson
3950
Strauchius
3949
Vulgar Jewish computation Strauchius 3760
Rabbi Lipman (1579–1654) Univ. Hist. 3616

‘Basil the Great’ on Genesis

Basil was Bishop of Caesarea Mazaca, Cappadocia, from AD 370–379. He argued strongly against various heresies of the church of that day and was one of the great defenders of the doctrine of the Trinity. He also established charitable institutions, hospitals and schools, and organized famine relief. Basil was greatly admired and respected, and was called ‘Basil the Great’.

Basil is one of the ‘Church Fathers’ that some have claimed did not believe in a historical Genesis. However, in a series of sermons on the Days of Creation, the Hexaëmeron (‘Six Days’), Basil showed that he believed:
  • In an instantaneous and recent Creation:
    ‘In order that we might learn that the world came into existence at the timeless moment when God willed it, it was said: In the beginning God created … which other interpreters express more clearly by these words: God made everything together, that is to say, at one time, and in a short time.

    ‘“So there was evening and there was morning.”? This is to be understood as the duration of one day and one night.’
  • That the days of Genesis were 24-hour days:
    ‘“And there was evening and there was morning: one day.”? Why did the author not say “the first day”?, but “one day”?? He wished to determine the measure of a day and night, fitting together the Night/Day time-scale (in fact 24 hours are the duration of a day—obviously comprising the night as well)—so that even if the day or night is longer/shorter at different seasons of the year, yet the total time-spell is always the same—one day. It is as if Moses had said, “24 hours is the measure of a day”?.’
  • That the order of events in Genesis 1, days one to six, are as it happened.
    For example, he stated that plants were created before the sun; evolutionary ideas are contrary to Scripture; the Creation was originally ‘very good’ and completely lacking in evil; the words are to be understood by their plain meaning, not allegorized, and to interpret Scripture otherwise is to put ourselves above God, the Holy Spirit, who inspired its writing.
In his writings, Basil countered various heresies, and it is clear that in his day, just as today, there was a strong link between allegorizing Genesis and all manner of strange interpretations of the rest of Scripture.

Note

Adapted from David Watson, An early View of Genesis One, Creation Research Society Quarterly 27(4):138–139, 1991. Based on: Stanislaus Giet (translator), Homelies sur L'Hexaëmeron by St. Basil, originally written in AD 370. In the series Sources Chrétiennes, Les Editions du Gerf, Paris, 1949.

References and Notes

  1. Creation and Time—a Report on the Progressive Creationist Book by Hugh Ross, Eden Productions, Mesa, Arizona, USA, 1994. Return to text.
  2. See Anon., Genesis means what it says—Basil (AD 329–379), Creation 16(4):23, 1994. Did early church leaders and Reformers believe the literal Creation account given in Genesis?, 9 July 2001. Return to text.
  3. published in 1830. Return to text.
  4. That is not to say that there were not beliefs in long ages, for example, with Greek and Indian mythological religions, as distinct from properly studied chronologies. Return to text.
  5. Brevarium Chronologicum Book IV, 3rd edition, 1699 in English. Return to text.
  6. Bailly, Jean Sylvain. Return to text.
  7. Based on the Greek translation of the Old Testament originally published in Egypt c. 250 BC. Return to text.
  8. French classical scholar. Return to text.
  9. A Greek historian from Iona, Megasthenes was Ambassador to India for King Seleucus I. He published Indika in four books. Return to text.
  10. Kepler was a Lutheran and A great scientist who discovered the laws of planetary motion. Return to text.
~~~~~~~

If you are unfamiliar with Creation.com, they are a science site with scientists engaged in research - operational science - the kind based upon evidence?   Like this below, with findings that should not surprise those who have read the articles on facilitated variation and genetic redundancies that I have posted in the past year or so...Organisms are pre-configured to make certain choices and take on certain characteristics with the help of pre-existing switches within the organism as coded by DNA:


Karyotypic and allelic diversity within the canid baramin (Canidae)

Previous studies suggest that all dog-like creatures (canids, family Canidae) belong to a single created kind. As unclean animals, all modern canids are descendants of two canids preserved on the Ark during the Flood. This pair of canids would have carried a limited amount of genetic diversity. They would be expected to have had a fairly uniform arrangement of chromosomes (low karyotypic diversity) and up to four different versions of any particular gene (allelic diversity). Today there is considerably more karyotypic and allelic diversity within the canids. The patterns imply that more than random mutation and natural selection are involved; instead, certain genetic components appear designed to change and numerous designed mechanisms may be involved in driving many of these changes. This suggests that God, in His infinite wisdom, designed animals to be able to undergo certain genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk.

Table 1. List of canid species and their normal diploid (2n) number which were included in a phylogenomic analysis by Graphodatsky et al.
Table 1. List of canid species and their normal diploid (2n) number which were included in a phylogenomic analysis by Graphodatsky et al.7
 
There is a need to more fully describe intrabaraminic (within kind) variation on a genetic level for understanding the basis for the variety we see within baramins today. It has been pointed out that the majority of mutations are near neutral.1 Yet intuitively, I would expect random (chance) ‘errors’ in such a complex system to be more consistently disastrous unless the system was designed to change.2 If genetic systems were designed to allow for such changes, then mutations (changes in the nucleotide sequence of DNA) are not necessarily just ‘errors’ or ‘accidents’. On the contrary, some mutations may be directed to allow animals to adapt in the present fallen world. By examining intrabaraminic genetic diversity, we should be able to discover a clearer picture regarding the role of mutations in the development of the diversity found in animals today.

Previous baraminic studies have identified all canids (family Canidae) as belonging to a single baramin.3 Since they are unclean animals, all living canids would have descended from a single breeding pair preserved on the Ark about 4,500 years ago.4,5 This historical information is important because it suggests there was a limited amount of diversity present in canids at that time. Today, this family is represented by 34 species that are widely distributed around the world.6 There are considerable data available on the karyotypic and allelic diversity in protein coding genes for several of these species. A brief overview of the data is presented here.

By examining intrabaraminic genetic diversity, we should be able to discover a clearer picture regarding the role of mutations in the development of the diversity found in animals today.

Karyotype

The family Canidae exhibits the most highly rearranged karyotypes* of any family within the order Carnivora. Normal diploid numbers vary from 34 for the red fox (Vulpes vulpes) to 78 for the domestic dog (Canis familiaris) and dhole (aka Asiatic Wild Dog; Cuon alpinus) (table 1). The Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) is polymorphic for a centric fusion; diploid numbers of 49 and 48 are found in individuals carrying one or two copies respectively of this fusion. Phylogenomic analysis suggests that 82 may have been the ancestral karyotype. Within the 10 species that have been studied in detail it appears that approximately 80 rearrangements have occurred. This includes numerous fusions, both centric and tandem, fissions, pericentric inversions and/or centromere transpositions.7 Several paracentric inversions, and even whole arm (telomere to centromere) inversions, have been implicated based on the differences in loci order among species (figure 1).8,9
Diagrams depicting some of the chromosomal rearrangements reported within the canid baramin.
Figure 1. Diagrams depicting some of the chromosomal rearrangements reported within the canid baramin. Such rearrangements often result in the loss of relatively small portions of DNA. Fusions (top row) involve combining two distinct chromosomes to form one; to become stable, one centromere must then be silenced. Inversions (bottom row) involve reorienting a portion of DNA within an existing chromosome. There also is evidence that the amount of heterochromatin can be adjusted. These types of rearrangements are too complex to be the result of ‘purely chance events’. While rearrangements do involve some risk, they probably also have purpose, such as adaptation in a fallen world. 

Evidence of similar rearrangements is present within other baramins and even within some species.10–12 Detailed studies of rearrangements in ruminants strongly suggest that numerous designed mechanisms operate to repair breaks, silence an extra centromere, adjust amounts of heterochromatin and possibly alter the position of the centromere.13 The fact that such rearrangements often become fixed within a species suggests that they may be beneficial under certain circumstances. However, fixing these rearrangements also likely required a small population, since it is difficult to fix even beneficial mutations in a large population.14 Thus, rearrangements should not be viewed as a major genetic accident from which animals occasionally may recover. Instead, the presences of multiple designed mechanisms enabling translocations to occur while maintaining viability of the animal suggests that such rearrangements are likely helpful for adaptation in the present fallen world. This is not to say that such rearrangements are without risk. For example, many heterozygous carriers experience some decline in fertility. Occasionally there are more serious results with infertility and/or serious chromosomal aberrations in the offspring.13 Furthermore, these types of rearrangements certainly don’t explain the origin of chromosomes.

Instead, the presences of multiple designed mechanisms enabling translocations to occur while maintaining viability of the animal suggests that such rearrangements are likely helpful for adaptation in the present fallen world.
The red fox and both subspecies of raccoon dog carry B chromosomes as part of their normal karyotype.7 These small, supernumerary chromosomes can vary in number both within as well as among individuals. Generally their numbers are low, with three to five being typical for the red fox.15 They usually contain significant amounts of repetitive sequences and, until recently, it was thought that they did not contain any protein coding genes. However, the canid B chromosomes have been found to contain the KIT gene, which encodes a transmembrane tyrosine kinase receptor involved in the proliferation, migration and differentiation of hematopoietic, melanoblast, and primordial germ cells. Adjacent sequences were detected, including the RPL23A pseudogene and, in the raccoon dog only, a portion of the more distal KDR gene. This suggests that the B chromosomes were derived from an autosome in a common ancestor and have been lost in other lineages descending from this ancestor. Further studies need to be done to determine if the KIT gene of B chromosomes is actually transcribed.16

Major histocompatibility complex genes

The major histocompatibility complex (MHC) consists of a number of genes involved in immune function and which are known for high allelic diversity. Several dog leukocyte antigen (DLA) genes have been evaluated for polymorphisms. As of 2006, there were 90 alleles recognized for DLA-DRB1, 22 for DLA-DQA1 and 54 for DLA-DQB1, with more expected to be discovered.17 High levels of polymorphism are generally considered a sign of a healthy population, although some dog breeds and wild mammals have low MHC diversity with no apparent ill effects. The DLA genes are on dog chromosome (CFA) 12.18 Some DLA haplotypes are associated with various canine autoimmune diseases such as primary immune mediated hemolytic anemia, polyarthritis, hypothyroidism and diabetes.19 However, it is important to recognize that these haplotypes do not cause disease directly; instead, they may be risk factors that affect the likelihood of disease development. As suggested previously, there is risk in maintaining sufficient variability to adapt in the present fallen world.

Dopamine receptor D4 gene

There are two portions of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene that are variable in dogs. The first is in exon 1 where the two known alleles differ by a 24-base pair (bp) indel.20 Interestingly, humans also are polymorphic in this region with a 12-bp duplication and a 13-bp deletion having been identified.21 The latter is particularly intriguing as it is found in 2% of the human population and is not associated with any known disease; yet the frameshift is predicted to result in a truncated, non-functional protein.22
A representation of the variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) patterns in exon 3 of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene for seven dog alleles (after Hejjas et al.23).
Figure 2. A representation of the variable number tandem repeat (VNTR) patterns in exon 3 of the dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) gene for seven dog alleles (after Hejjas et al.23). The nonrandom pattern of mutation suggests designed mechanisms are involved in this mutation. The variability in this region appears to have some influence on personality and behaviour.

The second polymorphic region is found in exon 3. There are eight alleles that have been identified in dogs.20 A number of these have been identified in wolves. The alleles differ by variable number tandem repeats (VNTRs) of 12-and 39-bp (figure 2). A similar pattern has been observed in humans, where a 48-bp segment is repeated from 2 to 10 times. These variations are believed to influence behaviour because certain alleles have been shown to be associated with the novelty-seeking personality trait in humans, primates and dogs.23 VNTRs have been identified in exon 3 of the DRD4 gene of nearly all mammals examined except rodents. The length of the repeated segments varies among taxa, but is consistently a multiple of three.24
 
This bias of indels, particularly VNTRs, in base pairs that are multiples of three does not appear to be explicable by natural selection. If essentially random, approximately one-third of indels should be multiples of three unless a frameshift, which often results in a premature stop codon and a nonfunctional protein, is lethal or significantly detrimental. It does not appear that frameshifts in DRD4 would be subject to such selection pressure, since a frameshift mutation is carried by a number of normal humans and knock-out mice.20,22 Furthermore, variability in this gene appears to contribute to variability in personality. The number of alleles in canids (greater than eight, as the raccoon dog has a separate allele identified25) is greater than the maximum of four alleles expected in the pair of canids on the Ark. Humans also carry more alleles than can be attributed to Adam and Eve. This suggests that this gene was designed to vary in a rather unusual way to enhance variability in personality and perhaps other traits as well.

Olfactory genes

Olfactory (smell) receptor (OR) genes are seven transmembrane receptors. While 1,094 OR genes have been identified in the dog,26 the canine repertoire of odorant molecules is significantly greater than this. This appears to be from a complex combinatorial code. Odorant molecules can bind 20 or more ORs depending on their concentration. ORs can bind more than one odorant molecule. Through interpretation of the complex signalling patterns, dogs are able to detect an incredibly wide array of individual odorants and a large number of mixtures.27
 
In one study, 16 OR genes were examined in 95 dogs from 20 different breeds. All genes were polymorphic ranging from two to 11 alleles per gene. There was an average of one change per 920 sequenced nucleotides, which is much higher than most coding sequences and a random sampling of non-coding sequences. Of the 98 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) identified, 55 resulted in an amino acid change and 30 of these involved changes to a different amino acid group. These changes were found throughout the protein (figure 3), mostly in variable or highly variable regions within OR genes. However, two come from highly conserved regions, one in transmembrane (TM) 3 and the other in TM7.28
 
There is a tremendous amount of redundancy in OR [olfactory receptor] genes which may have been designed to allow for future specialization.
Five of the 16 genes had an allele with a disrupted open reading frame. These were from one of the four indels identified or an SNP introducing a stop codon. Pseudogenization of OR genes is fairly common. In poodles, 18% of ORs are pseudogenes while 20.3% (or 222/1094) are in the boxer. Interestingly, 17 of the OR pseudogenes in the poodle were not found in the boxer, and 22 of those found in the boxer were not found in the poodle.28
 
It may be premature to assume there is no purpose in mutation or pseudogenization within OR genes.29 There is a tremendous amount of redundancy in OR genes which may have been designed to allow for future specialization. For example, a study involving Drosophila sechellia, a highly specialized vinegar fly that feeds solely on fruit from Morinda citrifolia, a shrub which strongly repels related species of flies, suggests that pseudogenization of ORs and gustatory (taste) receptors has occurred nearly 10 times faster than in the closely related species D. simulans. For those genes which remained intact, D. sechellia appears to have fixed non-synonymous substitutions at a consistently higher rate than synonymous substitutions compared to the same genes in D. simulans.30 Therefore, the ability of OR genes to be modified or pseudogenized may be an important design element introduced by the Creator.

Conclusion

Two-dimensional diagram of an olfactory receptor
Figure 3. Two-dimensional diagram of an olfactory receptor (OR) indicating positions of 55 non-synonymous single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and their allele frequencies in dogs, as identified by Tacher et al.28 ‘*’ indicates the SNPs found in highly conserved regions of the OR genes. There are 1,094 OR genes that have been identified in dogs.

The two canids preserved on the Ark would be expected to have carried a fairly uniform karyotype and up to four alleles for non-duplicated genes. This brief examination of present-day karyotypes and several groups of genes indicates that significant diversity has arisen since the Flood. Several different lines of evidence suggest that many of these mutations may have some benefit to the animal. For example, intrabaraminic chromosomal comparisons have implicated numerous designed mechanisms which control chromosomal changes in a way that maintains viability of the animal. The fact that such mechanisms appear to be operating suggests there is purpose to chromosomal rearrangements. The fact that different karyotypes often are fixed in different species within a baramin seems to support this concept as well.

The various genes examined here appear to handle mutations very well. In fact, it is generally believed that the high allelic diversity in the MHC genes is important for a healthy population. The redundancy in ORs and the pattern of mutation and pseudogenization in these genes suggests that these genes were designed to vary so that animals can adapt to different environments. Finally, the striking non-random pattern of VNTR mutations, all in lengths divisible by three, when there is no known selection that could produce this non-random pattern, strongly suggests that in some instances there are designed mechanisms driving mutations. The patterns seen here suggest that God, in His infinite wisdom, designed animals to be able to undergo genetic mutations which would enable them to adapt to a wide range of environmental challenges while minimizing risk.

Glossary

Autosome: a chromosome that is not a sex (X or Y) chromosome.
Centric fusion: combining of two acrocentric (centromere near one end) chromosomes to form a new chromosome with the centromeres adjacent to each other. See figure 1.
Centromere transposition: a change in the position of the centromere on the chromosome without a change in gene order. This rearrangement can be very difficult to distinguish from a pericentric inversion.
Frameshift: an insertion or deletion (indel) that shifts the three-base-pair reading frame of the gene. A frameshift will often result in loss of function of the protein.
Haplotype: a region of DNA usually inherited together; a group of alleles that are closely linked.
Heterochromatin: sections of DNA containing highly repetitive sequences and few genes. Despite appearing inactive, these regions are important for proper function. The amount of heterochromatin appears to be adjusted following chromosomal rearrangements.
Karyotype: the appearance of the chromosomes within an individual at metaphase, the time during cell division when the chromosomes are clearly seen.
Open reading frame: the portion of DNA that is read (copied into RNA) and may be used for protein formation.
Knock-out mice: mice in which the specific gene under study is disabled (knocked out). Studies with knock-out mice have been very helpful in determining the function of genes.
Paracentric inversion: an inversion in one chromosome arm that does not include the centromere. See figure 1.
Pericentric inversion: an inversion in a chromosome that includes the centromere. See Figure 1.
Phylogenomic: comparison of the genomes of organisms within a group to attempt to reconstruct ancestry.
Single nucleotide polymorphism (SNP): a difference in a single base in the DNA sequence; a change in which a single base pair differs from the usual base pair in that position.
Tandem fusion: combining of two chromosomes where the end of one chromosome attaches to the end or centromeric region of another chromosome. See figure 1.
Tandem repeats: multiple copies of the same base sequence on a chromosome. See figure 2.

Related articles

Further reading

References

  1. Sanford, J.C., Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005. Return to text.
  2. See Lightner, J.K., Designed to inhabit the earth, A review of The Plausibility of Life: Resolving Darwin’s Dilemma, Journal of Creation 22(1):33–36, 2008, and Williams, A., Facilitated variation: A new paradigm emerges in biology, Journal of Creation 22(1):85–92, 2008. Return to text.
  3. Siegler, H.R., The magnificence of kinds as demonstrated by canids, CRSQ 11(2):94–97, 1974. See also Wood, T.C., The current status of baraminology, CRSQ 43(3):149–158, 2006. Return to text.
  4. Genesis 7:1–10; Leviticus 11:27 Return to text.
  5. Ussher, J., The Annals of the World, Translated and edited by L. and M. Pierce, Master Books, Green Forest, AR, p. 19, 2003. Return to text.
  6. Fahey, B. and Myers, P., ‘Canidae’ (Online), Animal Diversity Web, 2000, animaldiversity.ummz.umich.edu/site/accounts/information/Canidae.html, accessed August 30, 2008. Return to text.
  7. Graphodatsky, A.S. et al., Phylogenomics of the dog and fox family (Canidae, Carnivora) revealed by chromosome painting, Chromosome Research 16(1):129–143, 2008. Return to text.
  8. Szczerbal, I. et al., Development of a cytogenetic map for the Chinese raccoon dog (Nyctereutes procyonoides procyonoides) and the arctic fox (Alopex lagopus) genomes, using canine-derived microsatellite probes, Cytogenetic and Genome Research 102: 267–271, 2003. Return to text.
  9. Szczerbal, I. et al., FISH mapping of 10 canine BAC clones harbouring genes and microsatellites in the arctic fox and the Chinese raccoon dog genomes, Journal of Animal Breeding and Genetics 123(5):337–342, 2006. Return to text.
  10. Lightner, J.K., Identification of species within the sheep-goat kind (Tsoan monobaramin), Journal of Creation 20(3):61–65, 2006. Return to text.
  11. Nachman, M.W. and Myers P., Exceptional chromosomal mutations in a rodent population are not strongly underdominant, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 86(17):6666–6670, 1989. Return to text.
  12. Lightner, J.K., Changing chromosome numbers, Journal of Creation 20(3):14–15, 2006. Return to text.
  13. Lightner, J.K., Karyotype variability within the cattle monobaramin, Answers Research Journal 1:77–88, 2008. Return to text.
  14. ReMine, W., More precise calculations of the cost of substitution, CRSQ 43(2):111–120, 2006. Return to text.
  15. Rausch, V.R. and Rausch, R.L., Karyotype of the Red Fox, Vulpes vulpes L., in Alaska, Northwest Science 53(1):54–57, 1979. Return to text.
  16. Yudkin, D.V. et al., Mapping of KIT adjacent sequences on canid autosomes and B chromosomes, Cytogenetic and Genome Research 116:100–103, 2007. Return to text.
  17. Kennedy, L.J. et al., Association of a common dog leukocyte antigen class II haplotype with canine primary immune-mediated haemolytic anaemia, Tissue Antigens 68:502–508, 2006. Return to text.
  18. Angles, J.M. et al., Frequency and distribution of alleles of canine MHC-II DLA-DQB1, DLA-DQA1 and DLA-DRB1 in 25 representative American Kennel Club breeds, Tissue Antigens 66:173–184, 2005. Return to text.
  19. Kennedy et al., ref. 17. Return to text.
  20. Ito, H. et al., Allele frequency distribution of the canine dopamine receptor D4 gene exon III and I in 23 breeds, Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 66(7):815–820, 2004. Return to text.
  21. Hejjas, K. et al., Novel repeat polymorphisms of the dopaminergic neurotransmitter genes among dogs and wolves, Mammalian Genome 18(12):871–879, 2007. Return to text.
  22. Nöthen, M.M. et al., Human dopamine D4 receptor gene: frequent occurrence of a null allele and observation of homozygosity, Human Molecular Genetics 3(12):2207–2212, 1994. Return to text.
  23. Hejjas, K. et al., Association of polymorphisms in the dopamine D4 receptor gene and the activity-impulsivity endophenoyte in dogs, Animal Genetics 38(6):629–633, 2007. Return to text.
  24. Larsen, S.A. et al., Identification and characterization of tandem repeats in exon III of dopamine receptor D4 (DRD4) genes from different mammalian species, DNA Cell Biol 24(12):795–804, 2005. Return to text.
  25. Inoue-Murayama, M. et al., Sequence Comparison of the Dopamine Receptor D4 Exon III Repetitive Region in Several Species of the Order Carnivora, Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 64(8): 747–749, 2002. Return to text.
  26. Quignon, P. et al., The dog and rat olfactory repertoires, Genome Biology 6(10):R83, 2005. Return to text.
  27. Benbernou, N. et al., Functional analysis of a subset of canine olfactory receptor genes, Journal of Heredity 98(5):500–505, 2007. Return to text.
  28. Tacher, S. et al., Olfactory receptor sequence polymorphism within and between breeds of dogs, Journal of Heredity 96(7):812–816, 2005. Return to text.
  29. This is not only true because some pseudogenes have previously been shown to have important non-protein coding function, but also because a human OR pseudogene containing multiple premature stop codons has recently been demonstrated to code for a functional protein. Lai, P.C. et al., An olfactory receptor pseudogene whose function emerged in humans: a case study in the evolution of structure-function in GPCRs, Journal of Structural and Functional Genomics, September 19, 2008. Return to text.
  30. McBride, C.S., Rapid evolution of smell and taste receptor genes during host specialization in Drosophia sechellia, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 104(12):4996–5001, 2007. Return to text.
~~~~~~~
If you have questions as to why I would post this right now, wait until the primordial soup response...

6 comments:

Jon Woolf said...

Continuing with the theme of "stupid creationist typos," how absent-minded does a guy have to be to misspell his own name in the author-line of his own article?

Radar wrote: If you are unfamiliar with Creation.com, they are...

... a typical creationist bunch who swear in advance to accept a literal reading of Genesis, and to interpret everything in that light. Preserving the inerrancy of the Bible is more important to them than anything else, even their own integrity.

Once again we come back to the age-of-the-Earth issue, and that list of evidence for which YECism can't account. Which is why I keep re-posting it. And also why you refuse to answer it. You need coherent explanations for:

* fossiliferous Large Igneous Provinces

* the no-young-isotopes phenomenon

* the sequential nature of the fossil record

* weathered and scavenged fossils

* the anomalous distribution of living organisms

And that's just a start. There are more. Lots more. Until you can answer these, there is no reason to take YEC geology seriously, no matter how many articles you copy-and-paste from elsewhere, how many massively finagled "computer models" you point to, or how many times you try to side-stab conventional science and its defenders here and elsewhere.

As for the article on dog genetics: it's amusing and informative to compare dog genetics to that of certain other organisms ... such as the cheetah, whose genetic diversity is so low that individuals from places a thousand miles apart are virtual clones of one another. Tell us, why did the dog get such a high-diversity genotype, while the cheetah got such a low-diversity one?

radar said...

Notice my nice little post about dog genetics?

When are you going to quit using things like LIPS as a proof of evolution? It does nothing but hurt your cause.

radar said...

* the no-young-isotopes phenomenon

What were they when created and when? You cannot trace history back more than 4000 some years and observation of atomic structure dates back just a few generations. You have no idea.

* the sequential nature of the fossil record

Not sequential so not a problem. Just another evolutionist myth.

* weathered and scavenged fossils

Most occurred in the post-flood era, but a few fossils get exposed with actual flesh even today.

* the anomalous distribution of living organisms

What does that have to do with it? Some kinds did better in some areas than others but God made multiple kinds of organisms to fill the same basic niche. How do you think this helps you?

This is just another problem for Darwinism, the fact that so many different kinds of animals and plants and microorganisms fill in the ecological blanks in differing places and extremes. A great designer plans for multiple possible situations whereas a deaf, dumb and blind random mutation-driven system would be lucky to produce even one answer to the question. Lucky is of course an incredibly generous term, since we are talking statistically impossible for one occurrence, let alone billions and billions.

Anonymous said...

"* the no-young-isotopes phenomenon

What were they when created and when?"

English please.

"* the sequential nature of the fossil record

Not sequential so not a problem"

Wrong. Sequential, so an insurmountable problem for YEC/flood. Get back to us when you find an elephant in the same rock layer as a T-Rex. Or when you can explain how the predictions that led to Tiktaalik being found can be explained in a YEC context.

Of course the fossil record is sequential. Surely you're aware of at least that.

"* the anomalous distribution of living organisms

What does that have to do with it? Some kinds did better in some areas than others but God made multiple kinds of organisms to fill the same basic niche. How do you think this helps you?"

If all animals supposedly originated from a single location - Noah's Ark - then there would be evidence of an outward radiation of living organisms from that point. We wouldn't just see kangaroos in Australia, for example. We'd see them elsewhere, or at least fossil evidence that they lived elsewhere - even more so if the global flood buried them and the continents only parted during/after the global flood. Can you seriously not understand how this clear evidence, observable by all, completely falsifies YEC and the global flood?

Instead, the distribution of living organisms by continent as well as the geographical distribution of fossils indicates that the organisms involved mostly in situ as well as migrated in some ways, but not from a single location 4,000 years ago.

YEC can not account for this.

Oh and do make up your mind: first you claim that the fossil record is sequential but you make up some excuse about how the sorting is due to ability to flee/specific gravity or whatever unsupportable excuse you came up with (none of which ever matched the evidence or was tested scientifically), now you claim it's not sequential.

Why does one only have to scratch the surface of YEC to have it fall apart into inane incongruities?

"This is just another problem for Darwinism, the fact that so many different kinds of animals and plants and microorganisms fill in the ecological blanks in differing places and extremes."

No problem at all. Actually it's what the theory of evolution would predict, if you'd ever care to read up on the subject.

"A great designer plans for multiple possible situations whereas a deaf, dumb and blind random mutation-driven system would be lucky to produce even one answer to the question."

Wrong, it would generate all kinds of variations, with the most suitable ones being filtered through natural selection.

"Lucky is of course an incredibly generous term, since we are talking statistically impossible for one occurrence, let alone billions and billions."

Wrong. Genetic variation is not only not statistically impossible, it's quite commonplace.

Jon Woolf said...

Hm, looks like Radar slipped into this old thread long after I stopped checking it for replies...

Radar wrote: When are you going to quit using things like LIPS as a proof of evolution?

Large Igneous Provinces are not evidence for evolution. They're evidence for an old Earth.

You don't even understand what I mean by the "no-young-isotopes phenomenon," do you? Here, this should help.

Anonymous said...

Jon said, "Hm, looks like Radar slipped into this old thread long after I stopped checking it for replies..."

Which is precisely why Radar refuses to date-stamp comments automatically on this blog.

Radar, please explain your huge flaming lie above where you assert that the Fossil Record is "Not sequential so not a problem". You have never once provided a shred of actual evidence to support this claim. So why do you continue to make it? You know, there were 65 million year old dino bones recently unearthed in my neighborhood Radar, you want to make a bet as to weather or not they'll find human bones in the same strata? Thought not.

- Canucklehead.