Search This Blog

Sunday, August 25, 2019

Deceptive Reporting on Yeast Evolution

Researchers commenced to fiddling with yeast, found a modification, and cried, "Evolution! Hail Darwin, blessed be!" They were shining ultraviolet light on the yeast. Maybe they got the notion from playing with a black light poster that had a picture of a hippie and had "Peace" in big letters.

Scientists fiddled with yeast, obtained a variation, and called it evolution. Instead, it shows no evolution, but instead, built-in adaptability designed by the Master Engineer.
Credit: Unsplash / Jonas Jacobsson
However it came about, they did not demonstrate any kind of evolution. They almost-intelligently designed a variation where a species of yeast can metabolize a food that it could not use previously. Every cell has a membrane that keeps good things in the cell and other things need to have an authorized escort. This yeast was given a transport so it could strap on the feed back for its new food. This may be beneficial for the brewing industry. What scientists found is actually evidence for special creation and built-in adaptability designed by the Master Engineer.
A research team at the department of Biotechnology at Delft University of Technology in the Netherlands claims to have ‘evolved’ a species of yeast (Saccharomyces eubayanus) to digest a complex sugar called maltotriose. After exposing the yeast to high levels of ultraviolet light, they discovered a hybrid gene that gave it this new ability. The hybrid gene codes for a transporter protein which allows maltotriose into the cell. The yeast strain with the newly engineered gene was capable of increased maltose and maltotriose fermentation, which can be used in the brewing industry.
All living things, from single-celled bacteria to multi-trillion-celled-humans, have a cellular membrane that prevents things from leaking out of or from entering the cell. In order to live, food has to be brought into the cell through that membrane. Thus, all species have transport proteins that help to bring things into the cell. The genes responsible for transporting sugars into the yeast cell are called SeMALT genes. There is a diversity of such genes found among the many yeast species.
To read the rest of the article (it's a mite technical), click on "New sugar transport gene evolved in yeast? Mixing genes does not equal evolution!" Also, there is a follow-up feedback article, "Can mutations lead to new genetic information? A necessary clarification".

Sunday, August 18, 2019

Evolution, Mathematics, and God

For science to operate, we must have an orderly and predictable universe. If you drop a ball it will hit the floor or whatever. It would take unusual circumstances to drop a ball and have it fall up. Science depends on consistent laws of logic and mathematics, and these things defy atheism and naturalism.


Science, logic, and math are not possible in a consistent atheistic worldview. They are only possible through biblical creation.
Credit: Pixabay / Gerd Altmann
I am one of those people who shunned mathematics and thought I would never use it later in life. Wrong-o! We use math every day, often without realizing it. Astronomers must have a good grasp of advanced mathematics, as do people in other scientific disciplines. Evolution makes science, math, logic, and everything else impossible (if they are consistent in their worldview). In fact, these things depend on the principles of biblical creation, because if a universe without God was possible in the first place, such a random place makes math, logic, and science impossible!
You have probably heard of evolutionary biologists – those who study biology from the perspective of Darwinism.  And you have probably heard of evolutionary geologists, or evolutionary astronomers – those who study their respective disciplines from secular assumptions of origins.  But have you ever heard of evolutionary mathematics?  No doubt there are some mathematicians who believe in neo-Darwinian evolution, but can math itself have an evolutionary origin?  What would that even mean?
We can consider, at least as a hypothetical scenario, the idea of particles-to-people evolution in the field of biology because we know that organisms change over time.  We know that descendants are not exactly the same as their ancestors.  And therefore, it is natural to ask what kinds of changes are possible.  The evolutionist believes that organisms like fish can eventually give rise to organisms like people.  The creationist argues that organisms diversify but remain the same basic kind.  Contrary to the straw-man arguments asserted by some evolutionists, creationists do believe that animals change over time – but that there are natural limits to such change.  The fact that organisms change means that we can intellectually consider (for the sake of argument) either creation or evolution as a possible scenario to explain the patterns we find in living organisms today.
Although this article is a mite long, it is extremely interesting and useful. To finish reading, click on "Evolutionist Math".

Sunday, August 11, 2019

Easter Eggs of the Brain

Gamers are usually acquainted with Easter eggs, a term used to describe hidden rewards or effects. Physicians and scientists know a great deal about the human brain, but keep discovering more interesting things to investigate further. Here are a few more.

The more doctors and scientists research the human brain, the more "Easter eggs" they find. This testifies of the genius of our Creator and leaves Darwin behind.
Background image credit: Freeimages / artM
Just when they may think they've mastered a scene or a level in the brain game, something new is found. Back a few months ago, we got a head start (heh!) on brain studies with "Software in the Brain". Purveyors of minerals-to-man evolution keep on a-trying to lasso evidence for evolution where none exists. When that fails, they fall back on the old "Hail Darwin! Blessed Be!" invocations when they should really be giving credit to the Master Engineer who gave them everything they have.
  • The brain has a built-in draining mechanism to rid itself of cerebrospinal fluid, which saves us the trouble of attaching a spigot and finding someone to hold a pail for us.
  • It also conveniently forgets some things, which may be a blessing so we are not overloaded with clutter. (I wonder what will become of the belief that we never forget anything completely.) 
  • Although Neanderthals have been conclusively shown to be fully human, some evolutionists insist that studying them can help us understand how humans probably evolved. Start with your conclusion, end with your conclusion. Use circular reasoning and faulty presuppositions, plug in your Charles Darwin Club Secret Decoder Ring™ and call it science. It is not really how it works, old son, but secularists do that quite a bit anyway.
You can read about these and more by clicking on "Brain Secrets Seen Through a Glass Darkly". Also, you may want to look at "Brains by Mistake: The Darwin Poof Spoof", your brain is the most complex object in the known universe but Darwinists say it is the product of multiple mistakes. Finally, "Brain Provides Shortcuts for the Will", the brain is like a smart assistant, allowing previously-learned actions to be called up on demand.

Sunday, August 04, 2019

Nearsightedness May Be Adaptation

For some reason, it did not click with me how to distinguish between nearsighted and farsighted. Like sitting up all night wondering where the sun went after it set, it finally dawned on me: farsighted means you can see what is far, nearsighted means you can see what is near. Recent research about myopia (the expensive word for nearsightedness) may fit into a creation science model.

An evolutionist researched the increase in nearsightedness and came up with no evolution. However, observations may support a creation science model.
Credit: Freestocks.org / Joanna Malinowska
A Darwinist noted an increase in myopia. There is no "selection" or evolution involved, so it remains puzzling in that worldview. However, the Continuous Environmental Tracking (CET) model being developed by the Institute for Creation Research proposes that creatures are designed by their Creator to respond to environmental changes — the opposite of standard evolutionary views. More research is needed, of course, but the evidence may very well fit the CET model.
Steve Turpin, O.D., M.S., a Doctor of Optometry, wrote about an alarming increase in nearsightedness in developed societies on behalf of the Evolution Institute (EI). His conclusions actually contradict Darwinian evolution. In fact, everything Dr. Turpin writes would have nothing to do with evolution were it not for his evolutionary conception of human history. Turpin, like many evolutionists, equate the primitive human ancestors that they envision in their minds to certain native populations living around the world today.
To see the rest, click on "New Ways to See Nearsightedness". Unfortunately, there is no explanation for the myopic management of certain businesses I could name...