Search This Blog

Wednesday, October 01, 2014

How Did Snakes Get Venom?

The question of the origin of snake venom has been re-questioned by researchers who were dissatisfied with the "we think maybe" evolutionary explanations. Evolutionary assumptions have hindered scientific research before, and here is a case where it happened again. Evolutionists will occasionally become dissatisfied with established guesswork and conduct overdue investigations, and they repudiated the established evolutionary view of the origin of snake venom. Interestingly, the results of their research fit well with biblical creationist views.
The origin of snake venom has long been a mystery to both creationists and evolutionists. However, by stepping outside the standard research paradigm, scientists recently showed that snake venom proteins may have arisen from existing salivary proteins.

The Bible indicates that at the beginning of creation, God's handiwork was not fraught with death, disease, and violence. Because of Adam and Eve's rebellion, creation became subject to all of these negative factors, including snakes with toxic venom. The question then arises of how the curse on creation brought about these deadly changes. Were new genes of malicious intent added by the Creator, or was pre-existing genetic information corrupted or altered in some way? According to what we know about genomic decay and the character of God as revealed in the Bible, it is more likely that genomic modification, possibly associated with degradation (genetic entropy), was the cause.
To finish reading, click on "Decoding Snake-Venom Origins".


Anonymous said...

If this and many other discoveries are predicted - and best explained by - the creation model, why is it always evolutionists doing the actual work and making the discoveries?

Anonymous said...

Any particular reason you disappeared that comment?

Anonymous said...

Nevermind. It was there, then it was gone, then it was back. Weird. My browser must be acting up...

Piltdown Superman said...

"...why is it always evolutionists doing the actual work and making the discoveries?"

Prove it.

Anonymous said...

You're kidding, right? This article is a perfect example. If the creation model predicts genetic entropy and modification of existing salivary genes rather than duplication and mutation, why did secular scientists make the discovery based on their "flawed" assumptions? What about soft tissue preserved in fossils? With the young earth assumption, shouldn't creationists have been way ahead of the curve with that discovery, rather than sitting back saying essentially "I told you so!" after the fact?

I'm not saying creationists haven't made any discoveries at all in recent science as that would be both foolish and wrong, but if you have the correct model, why is the original research output so low?

Piltdown Superman said...

I said prove it, not to offer a bunch of prejudicial conjecture.

Anonymous said...

Prove what?

I offered two recent examples where creation as a default assumption should have put them way ahead of secular scientists assuming evolution and long ages, yet it was the secular scientists who did the work. What more do you want? A couple more examples?

Tell you what: why don't you give us a recent case where the starting point of creation and a young earth lead to a noteworthy discovery where secular science wasn't there first.

Piltdown Superman said...

Tell you what: Back up your assertions without prejudicial conjecture, begging the question and offering your own opinions as evidence.

Anonymous said...

Which of the above did any of that?

radar said...

Pretty much every scientific discipline was started by a Theist or Christian or at the very least, a Deist. If you look at the giants of the centuries before Darwinism, they were the priests and pastors and amateur students of the world who established the sciences in the first place.

As you know, the PhD stands for doctor of philosophy. Philosophy is the backbone of science, therefore your belief system tends to determine your beliefs about the world of science. The wise man crafts a belief system that is logical. Few are therefore wise.

The sad thing is that Darwinists swallow incredibly outlandish imaginative conjectures as being "facts" when, if we took the reasoning out of the world of origins and used the same reasoning in the real world, it would be summarily cast aside.

Fathers, if you came home from the store and found your six-year-old son suddenly had a hand-held gaming device that he could not afford you would certainly ask him to explain to you how and from whence he obtained it. If he said he got it from a friend, you would then investigate that claim. If he admitted he shoplifted it, you would (if wise) march him back to the store to give it back, have him apologize to the store manager and perhaps even push a few carts back into the store for the sin of seeking a five-finger discount.

However, you would not believe it if he told you it just "happened to materialize" in his room. Yet you are content to believe that explanation as the logical cause of the Universe, of life and the amazing design features of the world and the organisms found throughout the Earth as well as the logical laws of science. How does order come from random chance? It doesn't!

Foolish daydreams should be cast aside as one grows up and becomes a responsible adult. Darwinists refuse to admit their pet hypothesis is fatally flawed. The fact is that most work in science can be done with no thought given to origins science. Most secular scientists give lip service to Darwin but then go about their work as if evolution had never been invented by atheists at all. In fact, science still learns from nature's designs and applies them as improvements to the less sophisticated machines and creations of man.

Bread and circuses are credited with ending the Roman Empire. What is the USA promising our citizens today? History repeats itself because people believe foolish things. Darwinism is foolish through and through.

radar said...

One more thing...obviously I am recuperating. My kids no longer seem to fear I am about to die and that is the best thing about getting healthier. I could see it in their eyes. My wife believed I would fight through but children always dread the loss of a parent. Well, I guess I am going to be around for a bit longer and will soon be able to do things other than work and then collapse in exhaustion.

That scientists would study and learn is no surprise, no matter whether they are Darwinists or Creationists or ID'ers. Those things that can be tested and duplicated can be tentatively proved and called laws. So why is the Law of Biogenesis now downgraded to a hypothesis if the testable proofs remain? Why are the Laws of Thermodynamics ignored, why the best statistical models shoved under the rug?

You know the answer even if you do not like it. Secular science is walled in by a Berlin Wall of Naturalist dreams. Illogical and wishful science is just sets of fairy tales. Bil Nye can claim he represents "science" from now until his dying day and it will be no less wrong than the various claims of Kim Jong Un and the rest of the North Korean leadership. Kim is presented as a superhero who is smarter and more athletic than any other man. North Korea claims to be a paradise for its people. But Jong Un is a waddling, ignorant despot and the North Korean people live in wretched poverty. Despot and dystopian society, together in misery, bound by lies and ignorance.

Hey, Darwinist? Your failed hypothesis is worse than the most horrendous philosophy that Stalin and Mao and Hitler and Pol Pot used to justify their slaughter of tens of millions of innocents. Your Darwinism dooms man to Hell after death and confusion before death. In the immortal words of Robbie the Robot (albeit actually first spoken on screen by Julie Newmar), "It does not compute!" Your entire life is an example of cognitive dissonance.

Rethink! What happens to you does not change my quality of life. I actually care about you...I don't want you to be drowned by the millstone hung around your neck. If you come to truth it will be a great thing for you! I do not seek brownie points in heaven. Being with God for eternity - who needs more than that? If you are there with me I will be glad, but if you are not I will not remember that you existed. In all honesty, there is no ulterior motive to my pleas and I am sure that is true of Piltdown Superman as well. We do not want anything FROM you, we simply want you to LIVE and not die - for your sake!

Are you brave enough to truly audit your belief system? My hope rests with the Great God who is calling to everyone. If you seek Him, He will find you.

Mr. Anon said...

"Fathers, if you came home from the store and found your six-year-old son suddenly had a hand-held gaming device that he could not afford you would certainly ask him to explain to you how and from whence he obtained it."

I think that's where the difference in our world-views becomes clear.

If I came home and my six-year-old son had a hand-held gaming device that he could not afford, heck yeah, I would definitely ask him to explain how he got it.

But if he told me that God gave it to him, I wouldn't stop investigating right then and there. I'd still try to get to the bottom of it.

Would you?

radar said...

A hand-held gaming device is a material object. Being entirely material in origin, the device would be composed of materials manufactured by people with coding (information) that was invented by the minds of men. Such things are built to be sold and make a profit for the designers, builders and the distribution chain and of course the store where they would be sold. There is no question that man is responsible for the device. For my son to have it, it would have either been purchased or stolen or by slight chance found by him.

The Universe is a material existence, by definition it is the sum of all materials in existence. The natural laws that operate within said Universe have been tested and by them we know that nothing is being created or destroyed by natural means. If we had evidence to indicate that the Universe can create anything, then the Darwinist worldview would have some basis in reality. But we know of no creative force in nature that produces matter.

Furthermore, intelligence only comes from minds and so a mind is needed to design the device and write the code. We can understand that hand-held devices don't just fall from the sky, they must be produced. The Universe didn't just fall from the sky either and in fact it could not make itself at all. So here comes God...