Search This Blog

Friday, August 31, 2012

Darwinists fail Information Final Exam. "F" is final grade.

 

Reverend Fun and Ian Juby are helping me out with this post!   All the cartoons are linked and all Ian Juby videos come from Wazooloo channel.   Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand away we go!!! 

Oh, and at the end I might have a surprise guest.  No, not Clint, he was already booked!



For quite some time I have invited Darwinists to provide me with a natural source for information.   Really, I gave them an easy final exam.    It consisted of one question asked in various way like this:

What is a natural source for information? 
Give me a natural source for information?
Go ahead and present a valid natural source for information...  

Go ahead and check out their comments. Go ahead, make my day!!! 

Well, they couldn't do it.  They didn't have any bullets in their gun, as it turns out.  A whole lot of nuthin' from Darwinists!


link

Several posts.  Lots of comments and none of them able to answer the question.   Go to:

The Great Darwinist Information Invitation

What do we get?  Well, I can tell you what we do NOT get...an answer!  The commenters had a few lame answers that were obviously incorrect and then began to try to conduct their own test for me but that was not the point.  The point was to give them a chance to give me, to give us ONE ANSWER.

Now, my IQ tests and SAT and ACT tests all classify me as a genius and I could join MENSA if I liked.  But the fact is that I am just really good at taking tests.   I am very competitive and when I got into college I wanted to get all "A" report cards and be on the Dean's list.   My grade point average not counting the semester the Army drafted me and took me physically away from class with two finals yet to come?  3.88 GPA.   I tested out at 99th percentile on SAT and ACT exams.   So I am smart.  But I am not a genius.   Jonathan Sarfati?  Now THAT guy is a genius!   Ian Juby did join MENSA in Canada and I believe he did so to aid his ministry.  He may well be an actual genius.  I love his youtubes!   I am not going to pay for the label of "genius" just because I am good at taking tests.   But I am smart.  It is a fact.  I was born into a smart family, had a mother who taught me to read at an early age and a father who encouraged me to read books.   

 

Yes, I do think Ian Juby IS a genius!   Thanks, Ian!!!


I had lots of advantages.  I am thankful for those advantages.  My parents wanted me to be what I wanted to be.  In the end, I wanted a family and a wife and a great life more than I wanted money.   So I have lots of kids and am beginning to pile up grandkids and that makes driving older cars worthwhile.  My wife shops carefully and we are trying to make it through the Obama economy until Romney wins and business picks up again.  Thank God for thrift shops and Aldi Foods!!!

I know the difference between an answer and a non-answer.   If you were taking a math exam and were asked to provide the square root of 81 you have only one possible correct response.   If you put down something like "Is a rectangle also a square?" you will have missed the question.  The answer is 9 by the way.   Only a correct response works.    I now invite all of you to read the comments thread of the above-linked post and identify an answer?  I tried to lure them and coerce them into just giving me a doggone answer several times and I even asked the question or tried to draw them out in subsequent posts:


Information? Is this an answer???!!!

More information!!!! Darwinists claim DNA does not hold information? Seriously?

What Darwinist commenters do is either change the subject or ask questions instead of stepping up to answer.   As it happens, my primary journalism teacher gave two of his students the right to grade a stack of papers for him in exchange for getting to leave early for the holidays.   Brian and I were both in the top five in the class and he trusted us and we did go through the papers and check them for various errors in spelling and so on, using the AP Style Guide as our reference when there was a question.   I still have that style guide.  The tests were part essay and part multiple choice answers, so we had no problems grading the multiple choice questions and we weeded out spelling errors and obvious grammatical mistakes in the essays and left Mr. Brady with the task of determining the quality of said essay answers.

We were culling through information!   We needed intelligence to be able to do so, the people taking the tests needed intelligence to answer and in the end Mr. Brady would determine the quality of the information provided in the essay answers.  Now I work in the information industry and I know the difference between the containers of information and the information itself.  My commenters pretend that they do NOT know this because that is one way to dodge the issue.  Too bad, so sad and you still fail the course!

link


I do wish today's journalists would at least try to separate news from editorials.  We used to be taught to know the difference.   For your information, since this is a blog it is in essence an editorial page published online, consisting of my opinions backed up by articles, references and quotes.  I rarely do a news report (although I do news stories on another blog) here because it is my opinion page.  It is a worldview blog.   So commenters choose to come here and I let them.   They claimed they could answer questions about information so I gave them a platform to do so and they have failed abysmally to do it.   They have earned their "F!"

Suppose you were in a courtroom and had been sworn in and an attorney asked you for your name.  Could you give him the answer, or would you ask him to define "name" and then ask him if he could discuss the heritage of his own surname and give a dissertation on common usage of various popular first names in the 20th Century?   Do you think he would allow you to go on and on?  Would the judge allow you to ramble on?  No.  You would be required to state your name.   If you did not know your name, poor thing, then you would have to admit this under oath.  

But this is not a court of law and commenters are not required to appear.  They do not have to answer the question.  They could ignore the entire thing.   How telling is it that they try and fail?  Anyway, today is the last day of August.   We have the Labor Day Weekend before us here in the USA.  So it is a long weekend.   I plan to do some reading.   I plan to have some fun.   I definitely plan to relax and get ready to work hard in September and have some success.   What I will not do is bother with asking Darwinists to answer this question again.    There is obviously no point to it.  It is like asking a dog to translate French into Russian. 

So we have come to the end of the trail with Darwinism and information.   Not one commenter could give me an answer to the question.   So I refer one and all to my very comprehensive post on the subject, an online publication memorializing the failure of Darwinism to address this basic question:

The Ultimate Information Post

I published that on Sunday, January 23, 2011 and it remains as relevant now as it did then, a clear and comprehensive look at the subject of information and the fact that information is NOT material in form or substance and has NO NATURAL SOURCE!!!

But I do have another question for Darwinists and I am sure they will squirm and worm and wriggle to avoid answering it as well.  Stay tuned and try to have a safe and enjoyable LOOOOOOOOOOOONG WEEEEEEEEEEEKEND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

link

 



HMMMMMMMMMMM. Do you wonder what the next question that Darwinists will probably NOT be able to answer?





Me and my boys are addicted to HIM!  A little old-school DC Talk and Carman to close...

Monday, August 27, 2012

Vay_Kay_Shun!!! Be good!

This blogger is taking a vacation.    I will have limited access during that time.   No comments will be answered for two days, although I may check and erase bad language once or twice.  So commenters kindly behave yourselves and do not expect any feedback for a couple of days. 

While I am gone you can think on the posts below?  Also consider the great work being done by David Coppedge and his cohorts.   Real science is studying design no matter what kind of Darwinist label they may occasionally slap on the box.

In earlier times... Disciplines were small and methodologically coherent.... Today, the circle of stakeholders in science has grown incomparably larger. Much public money is invested in science and, as science becomes more enmeshed with policy, significant economic and social consequences hang on getting the science right. Correspondingly, interest in the validity of scientific claims has expanded to substantially wider audiences. It is not only the technical integrity of science that matters today but also its public accountability — Sheila Jasanoff (Harvard), in Science (see 05/13/2010).

(Sadly, that means money predetermines the spin placed on research and results and money sources are prejudiced against non-Darwinists)

Adaptation by Design, Not Evolution

Posted on August 26, 2012 in Biomimetics, Darwin and Evolution, Intelligent Design, Marine Biology, Terrestrial Zoology, Uncategorized
 
Evolution does little to explain amazing adaptations in animals and plants, but intelligent design is up to the task.

ANIMALS

Insect wing robustness:  Scientists at Trinity College Dublin set out to explain why insect wings don’t fracture.  The secret is in the veins, reported PhysOrg; tears in the paper-thin membranes are stopped at the veins before they can propagate.  Locusts endure longer marathon flights compared to most insects, but their wing membranes are actually quite delicate.  By performing stress tests on locust wings, the scientists found that the veins provide stop gaps to prevent accidents from becoming catastrophes, providing protection against crack spreading by 50% (see video clip on Science Magazine).  In a way, the veins act like watertight compartments on a ship, preventing a leak from sinking the whole vessel.

The wings achieve an optimum balance between competing design requirements. Nature has found a mechanically ‘optimal’ solution for the locust wings, with a high toughness and a low weight,” remarked David Taylor, a mechanical engineer at the college.  He sees scientific fruit from the team’s work in two ways.  “The researchers believe that the vein pattern found in insect wings thus might inspire the design of more durable and lightweight artificial ‘venous’ wings for micro-air-vehicles,” for one.  “And by “reversing” their analysis, one could possibly even use the vein spacing of fossil insects to study the wing properties of extinct insect species.”  The original paper by Taylor and Dirks, which did not mention evolution once but mentioned design five times, is openly accessible on PLoS ONE.

Tiny bubbles in the feet:  How does a beetle walk underwater?  Very carefully, with the aid of tiny bubbles trapped in the hairlike setae of their foot pads.  A short PhysOrg entry explains how Naoe Hosoda and team at the National Institute for Materials Science sees engineering possibilities in their discovery.  “Dr. Hosoda and her team clarified the mechanism which makes this possible and developed an artificial silicone polymer structure with underwater adhesion properties,” the article said.  ” This achievement is expected to be developed as an environment-friendly technology and is also considered applicable to clean underwater adhesion without using chemical substances that impact the environment.”

Fish collective motion:  Evolution tried to insert itself into a story on Science Daily “A video game designed for predatory fish might have unraveled some lingering evolutionary questions about group formation and movement in animals, according to new research that took a unique approach to observing interactions between real and simulated animals.”  Princeton evolutionists claim “the strongest direct evidence that collective motion in animal groups such as schools of fish can evolve as a finely tuned defense against attack from predators.”  To understand this odd conjunction of fine tuning with evolution, we must look beyond the contrived experiment where the experimenters projected red dots (representing prey) on a tank containing predators.  Virtual fish are programmed by intelligent design.  Even a friendly colleague not involved in the study understands that:

The beauty of this experiment is that the researchers systematically vary the rules that the individual simulated prey play by, which dictates the structure of the resulting group,” Parrish said. “They’re like the little man behind the curtain moving three dials up and down — attraction, repulsion and alignment. Then they say, ‘Okay, bluegills, give it your best shot. How good are you at attacking prey based on how we set the rules?’”

The researchers claim that group formation in the “evolvable” software worked to deter predator attacks.  This says nothing, however, about how the prey fish “evolved” the ability to follow one another closely at high speeds with near-instant coordination, nor why the predators were repelled by the group motion.  Clearly these capabilities had to already be present in the fish.  Nor did it help evolutionary theory for the team to point out this is now fish and birds in the real world act, because they could have been designed that way.  Looking for “rules” that fish follow supports a design inference.  In short, the scientists observed adaptive designs in the real fish, but neglected to explain how purposeless mechanisms of evolution gave the fish these abilities by a long series of mistakes.

Cave fish tooth tale:  It’s well known that humans deprived of senses like sight or hearing gain 
increased sensitivity from their remaining senses.  This apparently happens with cave fish, Current Biology reported: though blind, they find their way “by the skin of their teeth” (Haspel et al., Current Biology Volume 22, Issue 16, R629-R630, 21 August 2012, doi:10.1016/j.cub.2012.06.035).  “Evolution” was apparently not important enough to the authors to mention it in their paper.  It was really a story of heightened sensitivity in existing fish denticles to vibrations.  The only hint of evolution was a mere suggestion: “Teleost denticles, oral teeth, cephalic lateral line, and taste buds may share a common ancestral sensory structure.

Darwin finch genome:  Evolutionists might be understandably excited to have the first genome published from one of Darwin’s “iconic” finches from the Galapagos, but any benefit for evolutionary theory mentioned in the announcement on PhysOrg is either historical hype or future hope.  The article went on and on about how the Galapagos finches have been symbolic of Darwin and influential in promoting his theory.  The article went on equally about how the genome is expected to produce scientific fruit in the future.  But for now, nothing stated in the article about the genome itself provided clear evidence for evolutionary theory: just empty promises, like  “Having the reference genome of this species has opened the door for carrying out studies that can look at real-time evolutionary changes on a genomic level of all of these enigmatic species.”  If something evolutionary turns up, we’ll have to report it later.

(Radar note - Actually Kirschner and Gerhart's work included a discovery that the genome of the finch and many other organisms include "switches" that hasten the ability rapid variation, in the case of finches to change beak shape/size.   Rather than differing finches "evolving" beaks to adapt to various island conditions, that ability was already programmed into the finch genome.)

PLANTS

Reach out and touch:  If you thought plants are oblivious to their neighbors, you should see a report from PNAS, Plant neighbor detection through touching leaf tips precedes phytochrome signals” (deWit et al., August 20, 2012, doi: 10.1073/pnas.1205437109 PNAS August 20, 2012).  It’s a study about the counterintuitive notion of “plant behavior.”  The lab plant Arabidopsis has been observed to reach out and touch its neighbors: “we identify a unique way for plants to detect future competitors through touching of leaf tips,” the authors stated.  “This signal occurs before light signals and appears to be the earliest means of above-ground plant–plant signaling in horizontally growing rosette plants.”

Wood you like to know:  Another story on PhysOrg has a lot to say about adaptive design but nothing to say about evolution.  Scientists at North Carolina State were excited to discover “a phenomenon never seen before in plants,” a transcription factor in the cytoplasm that regulates “gene expression on multiple levels, preventing abnormal or stunted growth” of wood.  “And it did so in a novel way,” the article remarked: when one of the four other proteins in its family group was present, the spliced variant was carried into the nucleus, where it bound to the family member, creating a new type of molecule that suppressed the expression of a cascade of genes.  This behavior has not been seen in a plant before, they said.  They hope it will help genetic engineers learn how to control the amount of lignin in wood production.

Wonder wood:  Ready to hear about the next wonder material for the 21st century?  It might revolutionize construction of homes, cars, computer displays, body armor and much more.  Get ready, it is (drum roll, please): wood pulp.  That’s right: common, ordinary wood pulp is set to turn waste into gold, New Scientist reported.  Why?  It’s an all-natural replacement for expensive carbon nanotubes.  It’s called nanocrystalline cellulose (NCC) and inventors think you will love it.  It’s transparent, it’s lightweight, and it’s strong, with a strength-to-weight ratio eight times better than stainless steel.  To manufacture it, engineers take plain old plant material (small twigs and branches work just fine – even sawdust) and purify it by removing lignin and hemicellulose.  By the time they mill it, give it an acid bath and concentrate it into crystals, it becomes a thick paste that can be applied as a laminate or shaped into almost anything. The beauty of this material is that it is so abundant we don’t have to make it,” one manufacturer reported. It’s also safe for humans and green for the environment.  The price is expected to drop as large-scale production plants ramp up.  In the excitement of design talk, nobody seemed interested in mentioning evolution.

The sooner we get evolutionary just-so storytelling out of science, the better.  Science no longer needs Darwin’s ball and chain.  Onward and upward into the Intelligent Design century!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People like Darwin, Karl Marx, Thomas Malthus and Francis Galton brought horrific suffering upon the world with the concepts of Evolution, Communism, Malthusianism and Eugenics.   The downgrading of man from the crown of creation to just another animal brought out the worst in mankind.   Another quote from the CEH site seems appropriate here:

"I heartily wish I was more worthy to receive it, by understanding more of the deep & important subject of political economy. Though our studies have been so different, I believe that we both earnestly desire the extension of knowledge & that this in the long run is sure to add to the happiness of mankind." — Charles Darwin to Karl Marx. Darwin wrote this upon receiving a copy of Das Kapital inscribed, “Mr. Charles Darwin on the part of his sincere admirer Karl Marx.” 

An estimated 148 million people perished under communist regimes. 

How many babies have been slaughtered in the womb?


About 46 million babies are aborted worldwide each year.

Fortunately for us, no one aborted Wernher Von Braun, the most important scientist in the development of the US space program!

 "For me, the idea of a creation is not conceivable without invoking the necessity of design. One cannot be exposed to the law and order of the universe without concluding that there must be design and purpose behind it all."


Nobody aborted Neil Armstrong, the pilot of the Eagle Lunar Module and first man to walk on the Moon.

Neil Armstrong's obituary included this quote“I am, and ever will be, a white-socks, pocket-protector, nerdy engineer, born under the second law of thermodynamics, steeped in steam tables, in love with free-body diagrams, transformed by Laplace and propelled by compressible flow.”



Abortion and the end of the world

 
The U.S. did not legalize abortion in a vacuum in 1973. The Guttmacher Institute, Planned Parenthood’s research division, states abortion laws worldwide were undone “rapidly” between 1950 and 1985.

Guttmacher estimates 46 million babies are aborted worldwide each year. This means almost 1 billion babies have been aborted worldwide just during the past 20 years.

If current world population is 6.5 billion, as the U.S. Census Bureau indicates, all must acknowledge the profound impact of abortion on the human race, no matter where they stand on abortion.

Overpopulation theorists will say, whew, look how many less mouths to feed, bodies to clothe and families to shelter.

Freakonomics theorists will say, whew, look how many less criminals to wreak havoc.

Both must conclude, since starving children are still prevalent and since the world seems ever more chaotic, we must abort more. Or if that is too harsh, we must provide more comprehensive sex education and more contraceptives.

Pro-lifers lament the loss of all the Beethovens, Platos and anonymous, pigtailed, freckled girls.

Pro-lifers say the solution for fellow humans in need is to produce more food, clothing and shelter, not kill those needing it.

Pro-lifers say teaching abstinence until marriage is the comprehensive solution, not teaching how to commit illicit sex without consequences, which is a comprehensive failure.

Pro-lifers say it doesn’t necessarily follow that creeps begat creeps. Everyone should be given a chance.

Those are the basic arguments. But beyond them is the question of the impact of abortion on world history.

I have a few theories.

One is that China’s forced one-child per family policy is enabling it to build perhaps the largest, fiercest army ever known. Now 27 years old, the policy has resulted in the intended or unintended consequence of a growing gender disparity. The ratio is now 117:100 Chinese boys to girls generally, as high as 130:100 in spots, due to prenatal or postnatal killing of girls. Young men with no hope of marriage or offspring are perfectly suited to work off anger and sexual frustration in the military. And what do they care if they die?

This may or may not be related, but it appears Christians and Muslims are the only sociologic groups having children at a rate higher than replacement. The media has written extensively on this. See here, here, and here for examples.

This triggers another theory: that abortion is helping clear the field of uncommitteds – or may force them to commit – for a future classic showdown between good and evil, Christianity versus Islam.

On an even grander scale, another of my theories is the escalation of abortion during the second half of the 20th century signaled Satan’s acknowledgement that the end is near.

When the first redeemer, Moses, entered the world, there was a coinciding mass extermination of babies (Exodus 1). When the second Redeemer, Jesus, entered the world, there was a coinciding mass extermination of babies (Matthew 2). How much more should we anticipate Satan trying to fend off – or at least wreak the worst havoc possible – Jesus’ triumphant return?

My fourth theory is that God is allowing abortion out of His sense of mercy, to draw those who have been implicated and broken by it – mothers, fathers, accomplices – to Him.

Genesis 50:20 lays down what I believe is a biblical principle, that God allows all evil for good to come from it “for the purpose of saving lives.”

Ezekiel 18:21-32 reveals a brokenhearted God who laments that any should perish apart from Him.

“‘I don’t want wicked people to die,’ declares the Almighty Lord. ‘I want them to turn from their evil ways and live. … Change the way you think and act. Turn away from all the rebellious things that you have done. … Get yourselves new hearts and new spirits. Why do you want to die, nation of Israel? I don’t want anyone to die. … Change the way you think and act!’”

Abortion is a most painful sin. It cuts through the fog of living a mindless life. Somehow abortion – and I’ve seen this so many times – softens hearts in its aftermath and saves eternal lives.

God’s ways are not our ways. One reason He is allowing the physical sacrifice of innocent babies, who are now with Him forever, is to save the eternal lives of their parents and killers.

The beautiful old hymn goes, “Softly and tenderly Jesus is calling, calling, ‘Oh, sinner, come home’” … to a world without end.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Farewell for a couple of days and behave yourselves!

Sunday, August 26, 2012

Humans and chimps? Not close relatives, but Y be surprised?

Whereas I did a series of posts on an interview with Dr. William Dembski,  I am a Young Earth Creationist and a Christian.   I am happy to say that Dr. Dembski has done some fine work in the field of Intelligent Design and thereby has helped secular science begin to accept that organisms are indeed designed.   But the best work being done to advance the understanding of Christians and scientists is being done at organizations like ICR, AIG and Creation.com,  the latter being the source of the article, below:

Y chromosome shock

©istockphoto.com/guenterguni


Researchers were unprepared for what they would find when they recently completed sequencing of the chimpanzee Y chromosome, and compared it to the human Y chromosome.

“The Y is full of surprises,” said David Page of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He and his team had just found that the Y chromosomes of chimps and humans are “horrendously different from each other”1,2
 
Why did Dr Page use the word “horrendously”? Because he believes evolution—that chimps are our closest evolutionary relatives. But Page’s team found that the chimp Y chromosome has only two-thirds as many distinct genes or gene families as the human Y chromosome and only 47% as many protein-coding elements as humans. Also, more than 30% of the chimp Y chromosome lacks an alignable counterpart on the human Y chromosome and vice versa.


‘The relationship between the human and chimp Y chromosomes has been blown to pieces.’David Page, Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA

Upon seeing these and other stark differences between the respective Y chromosomes, Page now says “the relationship between the human and chimp Y chromosomes has been blown to pieces”.

However, that doesn’t mean that Page and his research colleagues doubt evolution. Indeed, the cleverly spin-laden announcement in Nature journal heralded that “Rapid evolution distances chimp Y chromosome from human equivalent”.3 But Page’s language tellingly invokes creator-like powers to explain the chimp/human genomic origins: “It looks like there’s been a dramatic renovation or reinvention of the Y chromosome in the chimpanzee and human lineages.” 

It surely makes much more sense that the “extraordinary divergence”2 of the human and chimp Y chromosomes has nothing to do with supposed evolutionary ancestry but everything to do with having been designed that way. Design explains not just Y chromosomes, but why (there can be) chromosomes. They certainly didn’t happen by accident (Genesis 1:26–27, Romans 1:20).

Readers’ comments 

(Note - CMI responses in blue)

Al M., United States, 13 August 2012
How can they admit such things, and still believe evolution is plausible?

David Catchpoole responds:
Indeed! You have to wonder. But then again ... (2 Thessalonians 2:10-11)

Errol B., Australia, 13 August 2012
It’s not surprising that ardent evolutionists aren’t phased by contradictory data in their own fields of expertise, considering everything they’ve been exposed to in all fields relating to origins (cosmology, paleontology, archaeology, biology, geology and genetics) is already filtered via ‘Peer Review’ which has become a ‘Naturalistic Filter’ where all intelligent design hypotheses are prohibited from competing. Dr Humphreys’ evolutionist colleague who was a geophysicist, turned to Gould, a paleontologist when challenged with data from his own field of geophysics, while paleontologist Feduccia turned to biology (corn changing into corn) when challenged for evidence for evolution. Do these obviously intelligent scientists ever talk to each other about the data that is filtered out of publication?

Jack C., Australia, 13 August 2012
Atheistic scientists are becoming more and more like politicians. They will do anything to avoid admitting they got it wrong, including spin, lies and cover-ups.

Daniel R., Canada, 14 August 2012
Apparently Darwin forgot to check the Y chromosome, pretty negligent. Seems he spun the lie of evolution straight off the cuff. But there is far greater evidence than the Y chromosome: the Word of God. If that's not the end all, what else possibly is? God took a rib from Adam and made Eve! End of Story!

David Catchpoole responds:
In Darwin’s defence, the technology of his day wasn't sufficiently advanced for him to “check the Y chromosome”. Nevertheless, as Romans 1:20 says, Darwin had “no excuse”. And as for evolutionary geneticists today, who DO have knowledge of the Y chromosome, they have even less excuse! (If that were mathematically possible.)

Juergen R., Canada, 14 August 2012
Why do so many commentators assume evil intent on the part of researchers? By doing this they only feed into the either/or model for the science-faith relationship. This advances the agenda of the new atheists. They too see only two choices. There are many other ways Christians have in the past and do at present relate their faith to the findings of science. It does not have to be so antagonistic.

David Catchpoole responds:
Does this mean you're saying that a 'moderate' position is possible? Not so, as there is in reality No fence to sit on.

David H., United Kingdom, 14 August 2012
How strange that this didn't seem to get much coverage in the media! Facts are quickly buried by evolutionists aren't they?

Chandrasekaran M., United Kingdom, 14 August 2012
No wonder that Ivanov’s ape-human hybrid project for Stalin’s mutant ape army was a horrendous failure!!
The Bible explicitly says that a kind will produce only its kind not another kind.
Given the horrendous failure of ape and human hybrid in producing the missing link, ape and human are not of the same kind.

Steve W., United States, 14 August 2012
When someone denies the truth it does not matter if they do it ignorantly or with hatred and vehemence. It is still denying the truth.

Juergen R., Canada, 14 August 2012
[Ed. note: we print this comment, then repeat it below with Dr Jonathan Sarfati’s responses intercalated point-by-point.]

Yes there are many alternatives to the antagonistic approach you seem to favour. Have you looked at biologos.com? Or the Faraday Institute at Cambridge University? Or Hugh Ross at reasons.org? Or the Discovery Institute at discovery.org? All are committed to Scripture as the Word of God and treat science less hostilely than I see in many comments on these pages. It is possible to have peace with evolution and hold to God as Creator, using evolution as his means of creation. Before you delete me as deluded, I have spent five years in transition from a YEC position to an embrace of evolution and it has deepened my sense of awe at God's marvellous working in and through his creation. The theological issues we rightly have are being addressed. There are deep articles by great theologians and scientists at biologos.org and the Faraday Institute. Read and become aware that there is a diversity possible amongst believers. May love bind us together as we differ in our imperfect understandings!
Juergen R.: Yes there are many alternatives
Dr Jonathan Sarfati replies: Yes, we know, hence our page on Creation compromises. One rule for feedbacks, as stated on the site where you entered the comment, is checking out our site. It will be shown that you have disobeyed this rule.
Juergen R.: to the antagonistic approach you seem to favour.
JS: Well, no more antagonistic than our opponents, objectively speaking, but then there is apparently one rule for creationists and another for our detractors. See also ‘But it’s divisive!’.
Juergen R.: Have you looked at biologos.com?
JS: If you had performed a rudimentary search, you would easily have found:
Juergen R.: Or the Faraday Institute at Cambridge University?
JS: This is led by Denis Alexander, whose ideas we have effectively countered in:
Juergen R.: Or Hugh Ross at reasons.org?
JS: Heh heh, I wrote a whole book in effect demolishing his claims, called Refuting Compromise. It seems that Dr Ross won’t (can’t) reply.
(Radar note - I went to a Worldview Conference at which Dr. Hugh Ross had agreed to debate one of the Creation.com speakers but when the time came to debate Dr. Jonathan Sarfati Dr. Ross backed out.   The conference sponsors substituted a legal scholar to take Dr. Sarfati's place.   It seems Dr. Ross was and is afraid to take on Dr. Sarfati under any circumstances?)

Juergen R.: Or the Discovery Institute at discovery.org?
JS: See CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design Movement.
Juergen R.: All are committed to Scripture as the Word of God
JS: Oh really? Such as this comment on the BioLogos site:
If Jesus as a finite human being erred from time to time, there is no reason at all to suppose that Moses, Paul, John wrote Scripture without error. Rather, we are wise to assume that the biblical authors expressed themselves as human beings writing from the perspectives of their own finite, broken horizons.
Juergen R.: and treat science less hostilely than I see in many comments on these pages.
JS: Really? They seem to be committed to uniformitarianism and evolutionism more than real science (note that the article author and I have earned Ph.D.s in real science).
Juergen R.: It is possible to have peace with evolution and hold to God as Creator, using evolution as his means of creation. Before you delete me as deluded, I have spent five years in transition from a YEC position to an embrace of evolution and it has deepened my sense of awe at God's marvellous working in and through his creation.
JS: The issue is not whether I think you are deluded. Your fellow evolutionist Richard Dawkins said this:
I think the evangelical Christians have really sort of got it right in a way, in seeing evolution as the enemy. Whereas the more, what shall we say, sophisticated theologians are quite happy to live with evolution, I think they are deluded. I think the evangelicals have got it right, in that there really is a deep incompatibility between evolution and Christianity, and I think I realised that at the age of about sixteen.
Another fellow evolutionist Jacques Monod thought similarly, when he said:
Namely, selection is the blindest, and most cruel way of evolving new species, and more and more complex and refined organisms. … The more cruel because it is a process of elimination, of destruction. The struggle for life and elimination of the weakest is a horrible process, against which our whole modern ethics revolts. An ideal society is a non-selective society, is one where the weak is protected; which is exactly the reverse of the so-called natural law. I am surprised that a Christian would defend the idea that this is the process which God more or less set up in order to have evolution (emphasis added; more evolutionary quotes at Response to the evolution appeasers).
Also, what counts is quality not quantity of research.
Juergen R.: The theological issues we rightly have are being addressed.
JS: Hmmm … How about some of the above?
Juergen R.: There are deep articles by great theologians and scientists at biologos.org and the Faraday Institute. Read and become aware that there is a diversity possible amongst believers.
JS: As amply shown above, we have read the leading experts you recommend. You, like they, have not done the same in reverse, despite your boast of five years of researching the issues.
Juergen R.: May love bind us together as we differ in our imperfect understandings!
JS: That would be a nice sentiment, but apparently your idea of love is a brutal struggle for survival. After all, your belief is that Darwin’s “war of nature, from famine and death” is what God called “very good” in Genesis 1:31, although He called death “the last enemy” in 1 Corinthians 15:26.

Arek P., United States, 16 August 2012
You know, it’s funny to me that so many scientists will waste so much trying to prove the unprovable, when the real answer is right in front of them. They will waste money and time chasing something that the very evidence they study shows is wrong, all because they cannot accept that there is something greater than themselves.
And then they try to claim that it’s religion that holds back the advance of science? Right. …

Related articles

Further reading

References and notes

  1. Buchen, L., The fickle Y chromosome, Nature 463(7278):149, 14 January 2010. (Unless otherwise indicated, quotes from David Page sourced from here.) Return to text.
  2. Hughes, J., and 16 others (including David Page), Chimpanzee and human Y chromosomes are remarkably divergent in structure and gene content, Nature 463(7280):536–539, 28 January 2010. Return to text.
  3. Ref. 1 contents page, i.e. p. 129.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Currently I am reading Dr. William Dembski's book  "The End of Christianity."   I had asked Dr. Dembski if I could use some of his online materials, to be specific, how I might be able to use them.   He surprised me by a quick email response and we corresponded briefly.   Bill Dembski is a mega-brain and this is immediately clear when reading his writings.   I am halfway through his aforementioned book at the moment. 

  
There is no doubt that Dr. Dembski is a Christian who believes in Christ as his Savior.   He is intimately familiar with all the philosophical issues involved in crafting a cohesive Christian worldview.  I will finish the book before saying much more, but he was not as familiar with Young Earth Creationism at the time of writing the book as he was with Intelligent Design.   For this reason his book should make a great blog topic and also I will check back with him after reading, as I promised, to get his response to my thoughts if he cares to comment.  Since he is a famous and busy guy he may not write back but who knows?  He was courteous enough to reply to me earlier and I was thereby impressed by his manners.   I am a nobody in charge of nothing much so he was just being a good guy.   But famous folks are often NOT good guys.

ID proponents do real science that shows the world that organisms are designed and contain information and irreducible complexity.   This work is helpful to the world of science and I applaud them for that.

On the other hand, they have stated that they are NOT a Christian organization and that is quite true, even if there are Christians among them.  Because they are NOT a Christian organization, they have as a group no allegiance to the Christian faith and no reason to be concerned about Who the Designer might be or when the Universe came to be.   There are many ID scientists who figure the Universe is about 13.5 billion years old and the Earth may well be 4.5 billion years old and some even believe that some simpler designed organisms may have evolved into more complex beings over time!   Anyone who claims that ID is YEC in disguise doesn't know much about either scientific point of view.

Old Earth Creationists, Biologos and other Theistic Evolutionists and other non-classic Christians like Dr. Hugh Ross have placed their confidence in fallible man above that of the infallible God, some to a very small extent and some to a great extent.    Secular Science keeps changing their version of truth whereas Young Earth Creationists adhere to the Bible as being Truth and therefore in every segment of science to which the Bible speaks, it is Truth that will not change.   Those who do not believe this will keep discovering that what they believe to be true will keep changing.   For instance, the idea that chimps are close relatives of man is now circling the drain.   Funny to read a scientist complain about how fast evolution has worked when it is too slow for anyone to have ever observed it.   I know why, because it just doesn't happen.   What we do observe is devolution and that is going to be what we continue to observe.   Someday secular science will have to agree.  

Friday, August 24, 2012

More information!!!! Darwinists claim DNA does not hold information? Seriously?

really?

Lets see what real science thinks.   The operative word is "information" here.  I will bold and blue the word when it is used.   The article uses that specific word five times and also uses words associated with information several times:  Data.  Read.  Write.  Instruction.  Author.  Code.  The scientists did not use Darwinist blather to accomplish this.  They recognized that DNA is a complex and rich coding tool/medium and used it to store information, although not as efficiently as the actual DNA in a living cell because that is more complicated.   They also recognized that errors (mutations) in their own writings needed to be error-checked and prevented.   Because mutations don't provide information, they ruin it.  Just keeping it real...

Book written in DNA code

Scientists who encoded the book say it could soon be cheaper to store information in DNA than in conventional digital devices
Two molecules of DNA
Book of life: DNA is the ultimate compact storage medium. Photograph: Alamy
Scientists have for the first time used DNA to encode the contents of a book. At 53,000 words, and including 11 images and a computer program, it is the largest amount of data yet stored artificially using the genetic material.

The researchers claim that the cost of DNA coding is dropping so quickly that within five to 10 years it could be cheaper to store information using this method than in conventional digital devices.

Deoxyribonucleic acid or DNA – the chemical that stores genetic instructions in almost all known organisms – has an impressive data capacity. One gram can store up to 455bn gigabytes: the contents of more than 100bn DVDs, making it the ultimate in compact storage media.

A three-strong team led by Professor George Church of Harvard Medical School has now demonstrated that the technology to store data in DNA, while still slow, is becoming more practical. They report in the journal Science that the 5.27 megabit collection of data they stored is more than 600 times bigger than the largest dataset previously encoded this way.

Writing the data to DNA took several days. "This is currently something for archival storage," explained co-author Dr Sriram Kosuri of Harvard's Wyss Institute, "but the timing is continually improving."

DNA has numerous advantages over traditional digital storage media. It can be easily copied, and is often still readable after thousands of years in non-ideal conditions. Unlike ever-changing electronic storage formats such as magnetic tape and DVDs, the fundamental techniques required to read and write DNA information are as old as life on Earth.

The researchers, who have filed a provisional patent application covering the idea, used off-the-shelf components to demonstrate their technique.

To maximise the reliability of their method, and keep costs down, they avoided the need to create very long sequences of code – something that is much more expensive than creating lots of short chunks of DNA. The data was split into fragments that could be written very reliably, and was accompanied by an address book listing where to find each code section.

Digital data is traditionally stored as binary code: ones and zeros. Although DNA offers the ability to use four "numbers": A, C, G and T, to minimise errors Church's team decided to stick with binary encoding, with A and C both indicating zero, and G and T representing one.

The sequence of the artificial DNA was built up letter by letter using existing methods with the string of As, Cs, Ts and Gs coding for the letters of the book.

The team developed a system in which an inkjet printer embeds short fragments of that artificially synthesised DNA onto a glass chip. Each DNA fragment also contains a digital address code that denotes its location within the original file.

The fragments on the chip can later be "read" using standard techniques of the sort used to decipher the sequence of ancient DNA found in archeological material. A computer can then reassemble the original file in the right order using the address codes.

The book – an HTML draft of a volume co-authored by the team leader – was written to the DNA with images embedded to demonstrate the storage medium's versatility.

DNA is such a dense storage system because it is three-dimensional. Other advanced storage media, including experimental ones such as positioning individual atoms on a surface, are essentially confined to two dimensions.

The work did not involve living organisms, which would have introduced unnecessary complications and some risks. The biological function of a cell could be affected and portions of DNA not used by the cell could be removed or mutated. "If the goal is information storage, there's no need to use a cell," said Kosuri.

The data cannot be overwritten but, given the storage capacity, that is seen as a minor issue. The exercise was not completely error-free, but of the 5.27m bits stored, only 10 were found to be incorrect. The team suggests common error-checking techniques could be implemented in future, including multiple copies of the same information so mistakes can be easily identified.

The costs of DNA-handling tools are not yet competitive enough to make this a large-scale storage medium. But the costs and scale of the tools are dropping much more quickly than their electronic equivalents. For example, handheld DNA sequencers are becoming available, which the authors suggest should greatly simplify information stored in DNA.

Kosuri foresees this revolution in DNA technologies continuing. "We may hit a wall, but there's no fundamental reason why it shouldn't continue."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

All dogs are animals, but not all animals are dogs.   All data is information, but not all information is data.   


"The data cannot be overwritten but, given the storage capacity, that is seen as a minor issue. The exercise was not completely error-free, but of the 5.27m bits stored, only 10 were found to be incorrect. The team suggests common error-checking techniques could be implemented in future, including multiple copies of the same information so mistakes can be easily identified."

Yes, just as real DNA has error-checking functions and redundancies to avoid mutations, the team writing information into DNA recognized that their "mutations" were harmful and recognized the need to come up with ways to prevent them from happening as much as possible.

Soon such research will all begin to fit together - Information science, Biomimetics, Biomimicry, Cellular Microbiology, Genetics...and of course Intelligent Design research...and then the world of science will suddenly realize that Darwinism is backwards - it describes devolution, the destruction of life rather than the creation of life.   Those who built reputations as pro-Darwinist will have to change their tunes or leave the world of real science altogether.    Then advances in medicine in particular will move along faster and the world of academia will join real science in renouncing Darwinism.    Finally popular culture will realize that Darwinism was a charade and a farce and move on.

Evolution is stupid!

From that website:

  • The big bang exists only on the blackboard, and in the imagination.
  • The formation of the universe exists only in drawings and the imagination.
  • The formation of the solar system exists only in drawings and the imagination.
  • The beginnings of life on earth are products of the imagination and nothing more.
  • The so-called "soup" from which life had its beginnings never existed.
  • The rise of life from non-life is not possible, and is a fairy tale.
  • The rise of complexity in life is also a fairy tale, and product of the imagination.
  • The transformation from "simple" to more complex life forms could not have occurred.
  • Mutations, which supposedly drive evolution, do no such thing, and you know it.
  • There is no way that the diversity of life could be a product of chance, and you know it.
  • There is no way that human beings could have come from single-celled organisms.
  • And you know it.
Yes, I know it.   Eventually the whole world will figure it out!  Animaxander was wrong and Darwin was just another atheopath looking for a way out of dealing with God.  Darwinism is not science.  It is just bad philosophy converted into widely-accepted mythology. 




source




Thursday, August 23, 2012

Information? Is this an answer???!!!


Awhile back I took a post from this blog, filled it with links and content from other blogposts and put it on top of a links list.   I called it the !Ultimate Information Post.   Devoted Darwinists do not particularly care for this and often accuse me of censorship.   You can read their written accusations because they do it quite often.   I ask you, if I am a censor would I let people continually accuse me of it, or would I erase those comments?   Ah, Darwinists!   Anyway, recently I decided to open up a thread for them to give me the answer to a simple question, one they have gagged on for years:

The Great Darwinist Information Invitation

 

"I have a challenge for Darwinists.   Go ahead and present a valid natural source for information. "

 

Has this been answered?  Nope.  Of course the old "mutation and natural selection" was trotted out.  Hmm.  You see, you have to have information to build organisms that would be capable of mutation and enduring natural selection so that is not an answer at all.   Then data was proposed and naturally that was rejected.   Finally they began asking me questions instead of trying to answer.  Here is where it had come down to at around comment 100 or so because I had become bored of their continual evasions and rabbit trails.  So one of them gave me this:

 

"Anonymous whatsit said...
"Actually, you have all become boring. I would love to have people read these comments and see how Darwinists try to weasel out of the question.
[...]
You have nothing to say. You cannot answer the question." (whatsit was quoting me)

You're the one not answering the questions, as any reader of this thread can tell very easily:

1. If you have a book with a certain amount of information in it and you buy another copy of the same exact book, you haven't gained any information. If you buy five copies of the same book and then buy another fifty copies of that same book, you haven't gained any information.

Agree?

2. It's fair to say that five editions of a book (even though each book still only has five chapters) collectively contain more information than five copies of any one edition. (see above example and details)

Do you agree?

3. Which contains more information: the DNA of four lion cubs from the same litter, or the DNA of a lion, a tiger, a panther and a jaguar added together? Consider what instructions the DNA contains, and what the result of those instructions would be.


You know you can't win this argument, don't you? That's why you have to run away and pretend to be "bored".

Thanks for conceding the argument."
Hmmm. I didn't see any answer in all that, did you?   Is there any attempt to give me a natural source for information?   Trust me, there is a trail of comments like this one, all apparently attempting to evade the question itself.

No, I am not being snarky, it is just that after 100 plus comments I hoped a Darwinist would identify a source of information from nature.   There must be a talking rock or a singing stone or a pool of magic words and numbers somewhere or else my assertion (which is the scientific one) is that information only comes from intelligence.   If we are organisms (mankind), we are also special organisms because we can think  abstractly and be marvelously creative and I would also assert that we have a spiritual component.   That component is longing for an answer to the meaning of life.   Hopefully even though you understand that you can think up and pass along information, you are aware that you did not create yourself?   If intelligence is inherent in all organisms (and it is) then intelligence was needed to create them.   Enter God the Creator of the Universe and life and all that is in existence.
   
Atheism will basically tell you that you will eat and drink and then you die.   Atheists will steal whatever moral code they like from the Bible and ignore the rest.   They will live by situational ethics or whatever they can get away with or ?   After all, if there is no God then there is no one to be responsible to and you can do as you please.  This is why Darwinism is so important to Atheism, because without it you have to acknowledge a Creator and responsibility to that Creator. 

Darwinism asserts that we have evolved from simpler forms (although they cannot explain where life comes from, either) and if you actually believe we are simply the result of chance bonkings of atoms and subatomic particles (oh, yes, they cannot tell you where matter comes from, either) then their thoughts are the thoughts they were evolved to think and they cannot help what they say because it is pre-determined by evolution!   Think about that for a moment...if you think you can actually think...hmmmmm...do you actually believe you have free will?   Or do you believe you have evolved?

While you are thinking (or being predetermined to think you are thinking) on that, let me clue you in to what real science is doing.    It is accepting that DNA is a wonderful coding structure and trying to work within that structure to advance science and bring a better life to mankind, just as God intended man to do.




Sigh.   So I am going to try to reason with you.   If we know that man is intelligent and can pass information back and forth even without transferring material in the process, doesn't that mean that information is not material?   Review the notepad and paper analogy.  Then review basic statements about information:

 
The following statements about information are true:

  • Information cannot be quantified perfectly because it is not material in form.
  • Information containers can be quantified but the exact quality and quantity of the information within cannot be.
  • Information within DNA can be associated with specific portions of the DNA string, which enables us to quantify to some extent and identify to some extent the information contained within DNA.  But this is still a matter of identifying the container of information.   
  • No material or natural source for information has been identified.  Information within the genome is pre-existent and it is lost, it is mutated or it is transmitted but it is never created.

I have given Darwinists ample time and space to deal with these things.   To remind you of what the dictionary says (not a Creationist dictionary, just a dictionary):

Dictionary.com (that hangout for nasty old creationists)

in·for·ma·tion

[in-fer-mey-shuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1.
knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance; news: information concerning a crime.
2.
knowledge gained through study, communication, research, instruction, etc.; factual data: His wealth of general information is amazing.
3.
the act or fact of informing.
4.
an office, station, service, or employee whose function is to provide information to the public: The ticket seller said to ask information for a timetable.
6.
Law.
a.
an official criminal charge presented, usually by the prosecuting officers of the state, without the interposition of a grand jury.
b.
a criminal charge, made by a public official under oath before a magistrate, of an offense punishable summarily.
c.
the document containing the depositions of witnesses against one accused of a crime.
7.
(in information theory) an indication of the number of possible choices of messages, expressible as the value of some monotonic function of the number of choices, usually the logarithm to the base 2.
8.
Computers.
a.
important or useful facts obtained as output from a computer by means of processing input data with a program: Using the input data, we have come up with some significant new information.
b.
data at any stage of processing (input, output, storage, transmission, etc.).

Origin:
1350–1400; ME: instruction, teaching, a forming of the mind <>See inform1, -ation
How about Merriam-Webster?

in·for·ma·tion

noun \ˌin-fər-ˈmā-shən\

Definition of INFORMATION

1
: the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2
a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : intelligence, news (3) : facts, data b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects c (1) : a signal or character (as in a communication system or computer) representing data (2) : something (as a message, experimental data, or a picture) which justifies change in a construct (as a plan or theory) that represents physical or mental experience or another construct d : a quantitative measure of the content of information; specifically : a numerical quantity that measures the uncertainty in the outcome of an experiment to be performed
3
: the act of informing against a person
4
: a formal accusation of a crime made by a prosecuting officer as distinguished from an indictment presented by a grand jury
~


knowledge communicated or received concerning a particular fact or circumstance (DDC)
and
the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence (MWO)
 
Okay,  so it is obvious that whatsit is trying to take me down a rabbit trail.   His intent is evidently to try to get me to accept containers of information as being the information itself?   I am not entirely sure what he is attempting to accomplish but it is CERTAIN that he is NOT answering the question and in fact not one Darwinist commenter has an answer.  For this reason I quit trying to play whatever reindeer games he is attempting to play.
 
Intelligent Design is real science involved in studying the makeup of organisms and in doing so asserting that they are designed, so those designs are worth studying and copying.   Real science is learning to "speak" DNA and also learning to try to deal with mutations and fix them.
 
Now just to remind you that even bacteria are no help to Darwinists because their mutations are all negative:
 
 

Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?

 

Bacilli Bacteria
Click to enlarge
Bacteria are single-celled microorganisms, and most bacterial species are either spherical (called cocci) or rod-shaped (called bacilli). The 3D rendering on the left shows bacilli bacteria.

The extraordinary ability of certain bacteria to develop resistance to antibiotics—which are otherwise useful in speeding recovery from some illnesses—has been a hot topic on the minds of doctors, hospital staff, reporters, and the general public for several years. It is also heralded as a textbook example of evolution in action.

These bacteria are being studied by evolutionary scientists with the hope that they will reveal secrets as to how molecules-to-man evolution could have happened.
But are bacteria really evolving?

Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria

Antibiotics are natural substances secreted by bacteria and fungi to kill other bacteria that are competing for limited nutrients. (The antibiotics used to treat people today are typically derivatives of these natural products.) Scientists are dismayed to discover that some bacteria have become resistant to antibiotics through various alterations, or mutations, in their DNA.

Hospitals have become a breeding ground for antibiotic resistant bacteria. These bacteria proliferate in an environment filled with sick people who have poor immune systems and where antibiotics have eliminated competing bacteria that are not resistant.

Bacteria that are resistant to modern antibiotics have even been found in the frozen bodies of people who died long before those antibiotics were discovered or synthesized.1

History of Antibiotic Resistance

Antibiotics were first discovered through a providential experiment by Alexander Fleming in 1928. His work eventually led to the large-scale production of penicillin from the mold Penicillium notatum in the 1940s. As early as the late 1940s resistant strains of bacteria began to appear.2 Currently, it is estimated that more than 70% of the bacteria that cause hospital-acquired infections are resistant to at least one of the antibiotics used to treat them.3
 
Antibiotic resistance continues to expand for a multitude of reasons, including over-prescription of antibiotics by physicians, non-completion of prescribed antibiotic treatments by patients, use of antibiotics in animals as growth enhancers (primarily by the food industry), increased international travel, and poor hospital hygiene.2

How Do Bacteria Become Resistant?

Bacteria can gain resistance through two primary ways:

1. By mutation, and
2. By using a built-in design feature to swap DNA (called horizontal gene transfer)—bacteria share resistance genes.

An antibiotic kills a bacterial cell by simply disrupting a critical function. This is achieved in the cell in much the same way that a saboteur can cause a massive jetliner to crash by simply cutting the hydraulic lines.

Bacilli Bacteria
Antibiotic resistance of bacteria only leads to a loss of functional systems. Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man.

The antibiotic binds to a protein so that the protein cannot function properly. The normal protein is usually involved in copying the DNA, making proteins, or making the bacterial cell wall—all important functions for the bacteria to grow and reproduce.

If the bacteria have a mutation in the DNA which codes for one of those proteins, the antibiotic cannot bind to the altered protein; and the mutant bacteria survive. In the presence of antibiotics, the process of natural selection will occur, favoring the survival and reproduction of the mutant bacteria. (The mutant bacteria are better able to survive in the presence of the antibiotic and will continue to cause illness in the patient.)

Although the mutant bacteria can survive well in the hospital environment, the change has come at a cost. The altered protein is less efficient in performing its normal function, making the bacteria less fit in an environment without antibiotics. Typically, the non-mutant bacteria are better able to compete for resources and reproduce faster than the mutant form.

Let’s look at a famous example to help clarify this. During the anthrax scare shortly after the September 11, 2001, attacks in the U.S., Ciprofloxacin (Cipro) was given to potential victims. Cipro belongs to a family of antibiotics known as quinolones, which bind to a bacterial protein called gyrase, decreasing the ability of the bacteria to reproduce. This allows the body’s natural immune defenses to overtake the infectious bacteria as they are reproducing at a slower rate. Quinolone-resistant bacteria have mutations in the genes encoding the gyrase protein. The mutant bacteria survive because the Cipro cannot bind to the altered gyrase.

This comes at a cost as quinolone-resistant bacteria reproduce more slowly.4, 5, 6 Resistance to this family of antibiotics is becoming a major problem with one type of bacteria which causes food poisoning. This bacteria increased its resistance to quinolones 10-fold in just five years.7

Bacteria can also become antibiotic resistant by gaining mutated DNA from other bacteria. Unlike you and me, bacteria can swap DNA. But this still is not an example of evolution in action. No new DNA is generated (a requirement for molecules-to-man evolution), it is just moved around. It’s like taking money from your left pocket and putting it into your right pocket—it doesn’t make you wealthier. This mechanism of exchanging DNA is necessary for bacteria to survive in extreme or rapidly changing environments like a hospital (or like those found shortly after the Flood).8

What Does It Really Prove?

The mechanisms of mutation and natural selection aid bacteria populations in becoming resistant to antibiotics. However, mutation and natural selection also result in bacteria with defective proteins that have lost their normal functions.

Evolution requires a gain of functional systems for bacteria to evolve into man—functioning arms, eyeballs, and a brain, to name a few.

Mutation and natural selection, thought to be the driving forces of evolution, only lead to a loss of functional systems. Therefore, antibiotic resistance of bacteria is not an example of evolution in action but rather variation within a bacterial kind. It is also a testimony to the wonderful design God gave bacteria, master adapters and survivors in a sin-cursed world.

Are all bacteria bad? Visit www.answersmagazine.com/go/bacteria-good-or-bad to find out.

Dr. Georgia Purdom earned her doctorate from Ohio State University in molecular genetics and spent six years as a professor of biology at Mt. Vernon Nazarene University. She is now a researcher and writer for Answers in Genesis-US, and she teaches online courses for Answers Education Online.

Footnotes

  1. Thompson, Burt, Bacterial antibiotic resistance­: proof of evolution? www.apologeticspress.org/articles/439. Back
  2. Antibiotic resistance:­ How did we get to this? the Fleming Forum, flemingforum.org.uk/slides/antibiotic_resistance.pdf. Back (1) Back (2)
  3. The problem of antimicrobial resistance, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, www.niaid.nih.gov/factsheets/antimicro.htm/ Back
  4. Heddle, Jonathan and Anthony Maxwell, Quinolone-binding pocket of DNA gyrase: role of GyrB, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 46(6):1805–1815, 2002. Back
  5. Barnard, Faye and Anthony Maxwell, Interaction between DNA gyrase and quinolones: effects of alanine mutations at GyrA subunit residues Ser83 and Asp87, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy 45(7):1994–2000, 2001. Back
  6. For a more technical review of antibiotic resistance see Anderson, Kevin, Is bacterial resistance to antibiotics an appropriate example of evolutionary change? Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(4):318–326, 2005, www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_4/2005v41n4p318.pdf. Back
  7. Molbak, Kare, et al., Increasing quinolone resistance in Salmonella enterica serotype Enteritidis, Emerging Infectious Diseases 8(5), 2002, www.cdc.gov.mill1.sjlibrary.org/ncidod/eid/vol8no5/01-0288.htm. Back
  8. For more information on antibiotic resistance and natural selection see Purdom, Georgia, Is natural selection the same thing as evolution? in The New Answers Book, ed. Ken Ham, Master Books, Green Forest, Arkansas, 2006. Back

Recommended Resources

Genesis of Germs (The)
It seems that a new and more terrible disease is announced almost daily. Author Professor Alan Gillen shows that constantly mutating diseases are proof for devolution rather than evolution.
Evolution: The Grand Experiment
Join the author as he travels the globe—visiting dig sites and museums, conducting interviews with leading experts, and more—all to answer a simple question: “Can you prove evolution?”
NEW Answers Book Bundle (The)
(Retail $29.98.) Totaling more than 55 answers to questions on creation/evolution and the Bible, these two books answer such questions as: Can natural processes explain the origin of life? Can creationists be real scientists? Where did Cain get his wife? Is evolution a religion? and more! 
Evolution Exposed POWER PACK! (The)
(Retail $31.98.) The two most important science books for every high school student! Equip teens to respectfully challenge evolutionary indoctrination in class, research papers, and during everyday interactions outside of school. These two powerful books are thoroughly indexed by topic so that anyone can use them!