Posts Tagged ‘DNA’

Study Published in Nature Says that Vast Majority of Mutational Changes in Human Genome Occurred in the Last 5,000-10,000 Years: Cue Genesis

Church of Darwin, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 04 2013

“For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God. We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved”. Romans 8

According to evolutionists, anatomically modern humans, Homo sapiens, sapiens evolved approximately 200,000 years ago. The view of most Christians and certainly of “young earth creationists” is that man along with the entire universe was created less than 10,000 years ago. Although mutation and natural selection is the supposed engine powering evolution mutations are in fact harmful nearly 100% of the time. Creationists believe that man was created “perfect” but that since the fall of man in the garden the whole creation including man has been becoming less perfect as time goes by. The impact of harmful mutations has caused man’s genome to actually degenerate over time. Could the current rate of de-evolution have been occurring over the last 200,000 years?

Now comes a peer reviewed article in nature- a “high resolution sequencing study” of the human genome which indicates that the vast majority of the mutational load carried by human beings occurred within the last 5,000 to 10,000 years. Naturally the authors of this study have a different interpretation of the results than do creationists….s8intcom


High-resolution sequencing study emphasizes importance of rare variants in disease.
Nidhi Subbaraman 28 November 2012, Nature

Past 5,000 years prolific for changes to human genome

The human genome has been busy over the past 5,000 years. Human populations have grown exponentially, and new genetic mutations arise with each generation. Humans now have a vast abundance of rare genetic variants in the protein-encoding sections of the genome1, 2.

A study published today in Nature3 now helps to clarify when many of those rare variants arose. Researchers used deep sequencing to locate and date more than one million single-nucleotide variants — locations where a single letter of the DNA sequence is different from other individuals — in the genomes of 6,500 African and European Americans. The findings confirm their earlier work suggesting that the majority of variants, including potentially harmful ones, were picked up during the past 5,000–10,000 years. Researchers also saw the genetic stamp of the diverging migratory history of the two groups.

The large sample size — 4,298 North Americans of European descent and 2,217 African Americans — has enabled the researchers to mine down into the human genome, says study co-author Josh Akey, a genomics expert at the University of Washington in Seattle. He adds that the researchers now have “a way to look at recent human history in a way that we couldn’t before.”

Akey and his colleagues were able to dig out genetic variants occurring in less than 0.1% of the sample population — a resolution that is a full order of magnitude finer than that achieved in previous studies, says Alon Keinan, a statistical geneticist at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who was not involved with the study.

Of 1.15 million single-nucleotide variants found among more than 15,000 protein-encoding genes, 73% in arose the past 5,000 years, the researchers report.

On average, 164,688 of the variants — roughly 14% — were potentially harmful, and of those, 86% arose in the past 5,000 years. “There’s so many of [variants] that exist that some of them have to contribute to disease,” says Akey

Genetic bottleneck

The researchers found that the European Americans had a larger proportion of potentially harmful variants — probably an artefact of their original migration out of Africa. The first small group of humans that left Africa for Europe experienced a sudden drop in genetic diversity — a ‘bottleneck’ — owing to the smaller pool of possible mating partners. In the rapid expansion in population size that followed, selection was slow to catch up to and weed out potentially harmful mutations.

More broadly, the results suggest that humans are carrying around larger numbers of deleterious mutations than they did a few thousand years ago. But this doesn’t mean that humans now are more susceptible to disease, says Akey. Rather, it suggests that most diseases arecaused by more than one variant, and that diseases could operate through different genetic pathways and mechanisms in different people.

The findings further undermine the idea that common diseases are caused by common variations, says Sarah Tishkoff, a geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia. When genomics researchers first began looking at the genome for links to diseases, that was their assumption, but they quickly saw it fall short (see Nature 456, 18–21; 2008).

“This type of study nails home the point that we need to be looking at rare variation,” Tishkoff says.

As it becomes cheaper and easier to sequence individuals’ genomes, researchers are likely to see finer genetic patterns and trends in the coming years. They could even see patterns of ancestry within just a few generations, says Akey.


Ancient South American Tri Cryptozoological Mystery: De Loys’ Ape, Mono Grande (Great Ape) or Bigfoot from 1500 B.C.?

Church of Darwin, Crypto,, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 08 2012

By Chris Parker

A story about Bigfoot seems a bit far afield for one who spends a great amount of time looking for evidence that men and dinosaurs lived together as indicated by a copious amount of ancient art. It’s not a typical topic of a Christian poster (although Ken Griffith, my webmaster is into it).

I’m a bit ambivalent about bigfoot.

How should a Christian feel about the possible discovery of another primate out there in the world that seems very close to man? About the same as he should have felt about the mythological gorilla that wasn’t scientifically discovered until 1847 and the even larger, mythological mountain gorillas of equatorial Africa that weren’t discovered until 1901.

Now, did evolutionists suggest that the gorilla was another link in the evolutionary chain to man? Sure they did. However, the quoted 95% to 99% similarity to man quoted for chimps and gorillas only relates to the 2% of DNA that codes for protein. The other 98% of DNA which has now found to be functional and not junk bears no resemblance to the DNA of man. In short, should bigfoot prove to exist, he will simply be another animal that God has placed under the dominion of man.

Officially and according to science there never were “great apes” in South America—now or in the ancient past. However, there have been a number of reported sightings of large apelike creatures over the years.

Mono Grande, The De Loys Ape (Ameranthropoides loysi) and other Alleged South American Sightings-from Wikipedia

Photo:Right: De Loy’s Ape

“The Mono Grande (Spanish for “Large Monkey”), a large monkey-like creature, has been occasionally reported in South America. Such creatures are reported as being much larger than the commonly accepted new world monkeys.

These accounts have received rather little publicity, and typically generated little or no interest from mainstream experts, but have received some notice in cryptozoology.

Older Sightings Perhaps the first formal record of such creatures called “marimondas” or “maribundas” comes from 1533, when Pedro Cieza de León reported sightings from natives and from one Spanish settler. In his writings, Sir Walter Raleigh made brief note of reports of large monkey-like creatures in South America. He did not see such a creature himself, but deemed them credible, noting the ubiquity and consistency of reports.

The German naturalist Alexander von Humboldt, who travelled in South America during early 19th century, heard stories from Orinoco about furry human-like creatures called Salvaje (“Wild”),

Modern reports and Sightings The so-called Loys’ Ape was photographed in 1920; but critics of the photograph allege that it was simply a spider monkey, while others believe it could be an unknown creature.

In 1931, inspired by Loys’ ape, three Italians made an expedition to the Mazaruni River in Guyana, but without further evidence than more alleged sightings from the residents. Bengt Sjögren writes (1980) that: “They returned home with a couple of eyewitness-reports, that give the impression that the interviewer tried to make fun of them.

An American millionaire also set up a reward of 50,000 dollars to the one who could find a specimen, but nobody seems to have claimed the reward. The American scientist Philip Herschkowitz, who traveled in the same areas as de Loys, concluded that the story was a myth whose origin was the spider monkey, Ateles belzebuth.

However, in 1951, a Frenchman named Roger Courteville claimed to have seen an apeman at the same river (Tarra[disambiguation needed]) where de Loys said he had seen his creatures. Like de Loys, he presented a photograph of the creature as evidence. According to Sjögren (1980) the photo was a hoax, a manipulated version of de Loys photograph.”

The Crux of the Matter: An “Abstract” Ancient Sculpture which could Depict Mono Grande, De Loys’ Ape, Bigfoot or Some Combination of All Three?
This artifact is from the Alamito Culture of Northern Argentina which flourished there between 400 B.C. and 700 A.D. according to the experts.

The Alamito culture was closely related to the Condorhuasi culture in the province of Catamarca. They were llama shepherds who created some very modern looking anthropomorphic scultpture/pottery figurines now known as “supplicants”… Source LandofWinds-Blog..

The specific description of this particular piece from the Museo Nacional de Belle Artes which moves the date back as far as 1,500 B.C. follows: Source: Museovivos.educ

Anthropomorphic Figure-1500 B.C. to 300 A.D.

Since 2005, the NMFA has a room dedicated to the works of native peoples who inhabited the present territory part of Peru and northwestern Mexico, before the arrival of the Spanish.

Images like this anthropomorphic figure may have been part of ritual practices linked to ancestor worship. They were called “pleading” an arbitrary designation based on the attitude of the human figures represented, and are one of the most original of these cultures.

(Photo:Left to Right:Gorilla, abstract sculpture as much as 3,500 years old and the Patterson bigfoot.)

From the formal point of view, are characterized by the way they represent synthetically members: arms and legs are unified by involving space curves. Thus, the gaze travels voids polished interacting with matter. Perhaps it was this stylization and this game spaces which aroused the admiration twentieth century artists expressed by these figures.

This piece belongs to Alamito culture, a people who inhabited the province of Catamarca”…translated

So, De Loy’s ape, Mono Grande, bigfoot, or neither? With those shoulders and that visage I suppose it does represent something like one of the above. None of the above was supposed to have been around to serve as a model for an ancient tribe in Northern, Argentina.

I’m ambivalent but here is another version of an ancient, “South American Mono Grande/Saquatch/Yeti/Bigfoot.

The Machine of DNA in Real Time
The Ipad 2 Is Nice but Will Any Invention of Man Ever Match God’s Tiny Wonderful Machines in the Cell?

Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 03 2011

Psalm 139:14
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.

Tip of the cap to CreationEvolutionHeadlines

Why Paleontology is Not “Science”; When It Comes to Giant Pterosaur Flight, Science Believes Very Strongly Both Ways!

Church of Darwin, Crypto,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 11 2010

by Chris Copyright November 2010

Re: Photo:Ancient Pacific Northcoast First Nations Artists came down firmly on the side of giant pterosaur flight? “Haida Raven Rattle” shows man on the back of large flying creature. A dragon at the rear has tongue connected to rider which was a common feature of these pieces. Comparison with Quetalcoatlus, a giant pterosaur.

There are a lot of “disciplines” out there that call themselves “science” or scientific which in fact are neither. Paleontology is one of those disciplines.

Wikipedia tells us that; “science is an enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the natural world”. An older definition of science would call it a body of knowledge that could be logically and/or convincingly explained.

Quite a bit of what passes for science these days would not fit either of those “classical” definitions of science; and this specifically includes paleontology. Early God believing practitioners of the Aristotelian method used its logic and its deductive and inductive reasoning to study and make observations about God’s creation. Modern scientific disciplines have become unscientific because its materialistic practitioners create mythologies and just so stories in order to seek to separate God from His creation.

Modern science has become religion. Modern science is about consensus. Modern science is about materialistic explanations only. Modern science is concerned with politics and right thinking. Modern science goes after non-conformists every bit as much as the Catholic Church went after Galileo.

Michael Crichton, an evolutionist, sadly now passed on once wrote:

“In recent years, much has been said about the post-modernist claims about science to the effect that science is just another form of raw power, tricked out in special claims for truth-seeking and objectivity that really have no basis in fact. Science, we are told, is no better than any other undertaking. These ideas anger many scientists, and they anger me. But recent events have made me wonder if they are correct.”…Aliens Cause Global Warming

Crichton’s specific concern was the kind of “consensus science” that surrounded disciplines like climatology and SETI. Science was now in the business of creating a consensus instead of building and organizing facts around testable hypotheses. Not only that science is now in the business of attacking the credibility and motivations of even their brother scientists whenever they failed to bow down to the paradigm, he believed.

As a current example, science has taken to identifying climate warming non adopters by the pejorative term “climate change deniers” in an attempt to cast people who have doubts about the global warming consensus in the same light as those who deny the Holocaust.

Climatology is not science. This supposed scientific discipline studies supposedly studies the history of our planet covering they believe over 4 billion years. In the past 30 years or so they have been building a consensus built upon carefully selected data for “global warming”. In the process, they attack and silence non-believers.

If this really was a science that built and organized testable explanations or that created a body of knowledge that could be logically or convincingly explained, why was the principal fear of that science as late as 1975; worldwide, global cooling?

Here is a headline from the New York Times, 1975: “Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing; Major Cooling May Be Ahead; Scientists Ponder Why World’s Climate Is Changing; a Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable…by WALTER SULLIVAN, The New York Times
May 21, 1975”.

A discipline that comes to diametrically opposing conclusions within the span of 35 or 40 years about the weather of a planet supposedly 4.5 billion years old has no predictive or scientific value whatsoever. That’s why climatology is not a science. (see All The Really Smart People Believe in Man-Made Global Warming)

Can we say that Genetics is not science? Clearly there are aspects of genetics that fit the classical definitions of science. However, as I.L. Cohen, Researcher and Mathematician and member of the NY Academy of Sciences noted “At that moment, when the DNA/RNA system became understood, the debate between Evolutionists and Creationists should have come to a screeching halt…….”

He said that because design and intelligence are now obvious and inherent characteristics of the DNA/RNA system. DNA is a language that contains an unimaginable amount of data that is stored in the cells of everything living. DNA is not only a language like English or Russian, it conveys a Message to every living cell that components of the cell understand and execute. Life could not exist without the DNA/RNA system because the instructions for life are conveyed by the system.

Any science that ignores this obvious truth and instead mythologizes a materialistic “explanation” for DNA’s creation and existence cannot be called a science. After all, it is ill-logical and thus anti-scientific to find a message in literally every living cell and not to understand that someone or something intelligent sent that message. The contents of the message conveyed by this langauge in the smallest single bacterium cell is beyond the technology of man.

As an additional blemish on their scientific credentials; “scientists” named a portion of DNA that they did not have the capacity to understand “junk DNA” believing at the time it had no function. As time has passed and it’s become clear that those sections of DNA in fact have very important functions, the term junk science would seem to have been more appropriate.

Cosmology is not a science. The big bang is not a theory; (a hypotheses backed by testing data) it is a materialistic philosophical mythology. How can a scientific explanation fail to explain upwards of 97% of observation? This is in fact the exact opposite of the classical definitions of science. Dark matter and dark energy are two place fillers invented out of darkened imaginations to account for observations in the real world that the theory doesn’t contemplate and can’t explain.

Neither dark matter nor dark energy can be seen or detected. They are invisible, undetectable and mythological in exactly the same way fairies are. This is why cosmology is not science.

Sometimes even “hard science” like physics isn’t science. Not when it has to do the bidding of materialists. In the last several decades it’s become abundantly clear that we live in an anthropic universe. That is, it’s become clear that the universe was created to cradle life and even more disturbing for some; that this planet and solar system have many characteristics seemingly tailored for life.

In desperation, superstring theory; a mythology that there exist an infinite number of universes inhabiting the same space and that we just happen to be one among those infinite universes that supports life has been created out of vivid imagination, materialistic philosophy and chewing gum? Of course, the multi-verses of superstring theory can not be seen, detected. The theory is untestable. This lack of “testability” is precisely why materialists claim that “special creation” is not scientific.

A paleontologist is a “scientist” who studies the history of life on earth, focusing on organisms that lived in the distant past. Paleontologists can wax for hours about the “Cambrian Explosion” and the “Great Dying” mostly without even realizing that they are describing creation and the fall from Genesis.

Paleontology is the kind of science where someone with a PhD can publish an article in a scientific journal suggesting that “maybe” a mutation in a single protein-led to smaller jaw muscles in an ape—which then gave them more room in their skulls to develop a larger “human” brain. This scientific mythology was reported worldwide. One can only surmise that the authors of this “scientific article” and those who accepted it must have had disturbingly large jaw muscles?

Paleontological scientific findings are slavishly reported by the news media and fawned over by materialists because it is the scientific discipline that most directly seeks to support Darwinism and materialism. Evolutionary theory is most often seen through the lenses of this “science”. One with an open mind would be hard pressed to discover one thing that paleontologists are correct about. On the other hand, no one speaks with more apparent authority than the paleontologists. Every body that they study is already dead after all; whose going to contradict?

Remember Ida, the fossil that was supposed to be an early human ancestor that was going to change everything? The subject of the simultaneous release of a book and a documentary and much slavish media reporting in April 2009 did not in the end make most if any of the most prominent Top 10 Scientific Stories of the year lists. How is this possible for a science? (see Fossil Ida; Evolutionists Now Dare Not Speak Its Name)

Well, paleontologists practically invented the phrase; “scientists had previously thought”.

Apologists for non-science science often snootily declare that this is what is great about science; its always willing to admit its mistakes and then to move forward. This is what is admirable about science they say.

Perhaps this is true, but meanwhile; the patient is dead.

In April 2009, a study was published and then breathlessly reported worldwide to the effect that Giant Pterosaurs, a creature supposedly extinct for more that 65 million years, could not fly. “Giant Pterosaurs Couldn’t Fly, Study Suggests”

It’s a mystery how natural selection working through beneficial mutations could confer evolutionary advantage to a creature with giant, useless wings but that is paleontology for you; its not rocket science—its not even science. Shut up and believe.

The study was published by study leader Katsufumi Sato, an associate professor at the University of Tokyo’s Ocean Research Institute.

“Based on the weights and body sizes of modern birds, a new study finds that animals heavier than 90 pounds (41 kilograms) with wingspans greater than 16.7 feet (5.1 meters) wouldn’t be able to flap fast enough to stay aloft.”, the study concluded.

The conclusion casts serious doubt on the flying ability of large pterosaurs such as Quetzalcoatlus, thought to be one of the largest airborne animals of all time.

Dutifully, other scientists began surmising that these giant pterosaurs were swimmers instead. Materialistic science teachers passed this new information on to their students. Young evolution influenced kids began drawing versions of wingless pterosaurs and posting them on evolution websites looking for approval.

Posters on sites like Talk Origins went on and used this new “scientific information” to berate believers. “Why would God create a giant pterosaur that couldn’t fly”? Why would evolution do that they forgot to ask themselves….what would be the evolutionary advantage?

Anyway, another scientist in the paleontological world was working on his own study regarding pterosaur flight. Now, if both of these studies were scientific, and relied on building testable hypotheses or built knowledge bases etc….. One might say, how could they do that? The creatures they study or just bits and pieces of fossilized bones, I would say; “exactly correct” and that again is why paleontology is not science.

Paleontologist Michael Habib offered new findings about giant pterosaurs based on “new models of their wingspans, shape and body mass”. His study was reported on October 18, 2010 in National Geographic News approximately 18 months after the prior study had been reported on, also in National Geographic News.

Now would Habib’s study support Sato’s no fly theory? Would it perhaps suggest that well…..maybe they could fly a little bit given a strong wind, a one thousand foot cliff and Air Jordans?

The title of the new study or at least of the News articles tell the story: “Prehistoric Reptile Could Fly 10,000 Miles”.

“It’s now believed that some of the larger pterosaurs, such as this Tropeognathus mesembrinus, could fly as far as 10,000 miles at a time.

Whether you learned in school to call them pterodactyls or pteranodons, pterosaur fossils have been found all around the world and lived from 65 million to 200 million years ago.

They ranged in size from some with an average wingspan of 6 feet to the giant giraffe-sized Quetzalcoatlus of Texas that could reach up to a 30-foot wingspan.”

Quetzalcoatlus was one of the giant pterosaurs specifically mentioned in the prior article as not being able to get itself off the ground.

Evolution is incredibly flexible and malleable and so are its believers. You see how the article explains that they now believe something diametrically opposed to what they firmly believed only 18 months ago?

Remarkable. That’s why paleontology is more religion; faith and belief than it is science.

Paleontologists have certainly covered the bases here when it comes to giant pterosaur flight. There is one thing that we now know with “scientific certainty”; giant pterosaurs either could not get off the ground and couldn’t so much as even flap their wings—or they were the greatest terrestrial flyers of all time! One scientist claims that his study shows that giant pterosaurs could not get off the ground. The second study indicates that they were the greatest fliers of all time.

Meanwhile, the news media slavishly reports the new information without reference to the old information and certianly without criticism or their own analysis. Materialistic science teachers passed this new information on to their students. Young evolution influenced kids began drawing versions of space-going pterosaurs and posting them on evolution websites looking for approval.

Posters on sites like Talk Origins will now go on and try to use this new “scientific information” to berate believers.

Giant Pterosaurs Couldn’t Fly Study Suggests

Prehistoric Reptile Could Fly 10,000 Miles

X-Woman a New Species? Don’t Tell Me; Evolutionists X-Pect it Will Cause a Rewrite of “Human Evolution”? Well, Not X-Exactly.

Church of Darwin,, Science, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Apr 06 2010

(When Neanderthal DNA was finally tested, it was found that it matched yours and mine to 99.99%)This, even if they are eve found in association with “modern” humans it is an article of faith that they never interbred. Here with “X-Woman” they have to make the same claim although the finger was found in association with Neanderthal “artifacts”. It’s clear as our opening quote states, there is no evolutionary ladder–there are rather, a number of fossils, some of which are apes or monkeys and some of which are men.

They are basing their “separate species” claims on the alleged recovery of mitochondrial DNA. The problems with this approach are manifold and technical so may I just say that the claims they have made are grandiose, speculative and silly? Well, here is an article excerpt that might shed some light on the problems. The subject of the article is the mythical mitochondrial Eve:

“The validity of these assertions (re MtDNA Eve) is dependent upon two critically important assumptions: (1) that mtDNA is, in fact, derived exclusively from the mother; and (2) that the mutation rates associated with mtDNA have remained constant over time.

The fact is (again, as we pointed out in the earlier article), we now know that both of these assumptions are wrong!

Ann Gibbons authored an article for the January 2, 1998 issue of Science titled “Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock,” the subheading of which read as follows: “Mitochondrial DNA appears to mutate much faster than expected, prompting new DNA forensics procedures and raising troubling questions about the dating of evolutionary events.”

In that article, she discussed new data which showed that the mutation rates used to obtain mitochondrial Eve’s age no longer could be considered valid.

Evolutionists have assumed that the clock is constant, ticking off mutations every 6000 to 12,000 years or so. But if the clock ticks faster or at different rates at different times, some of the spectacular results—such as dating our ancestors’ first journeys into Europe at about 40,000 years ago—may be in question (279:28).

Gibbons then quoted Neil Howell, a geneticist at the University of Texas Medical Branch in Galveston, who stated: “We’ve been treating this like a stopwatch, and I’m concerned that it’s as precise as a sun dial. I don’t mean to be inflammatory, but I’m concerned that we’re pushing this system more than we should” (279:28). Gibbons concluded:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that “mitochondrial Eve”—the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 10,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6,000 years old (1998, 279:29, emp. added).

“Mitochondrial Eve” a mere 6,000 years old—instead of 200,000?! Gibbons quickly went on to note, of course, that “no one thinks that’s the case,” (279:29). She ended her article by discussing the fact that many test results are (to use her exact word) “inconclusive,” and lamented that “for now, so are some of the evolutionary results gained by using the mtDNA clock” (279:29).

Which brings us to the point of this article. As we pointed out in our introductory sentence, the news gets worse. The “evolutionary results gained by using the mtDNA clock” are not just “inconclusive.”
They’re wrong! In the January 2003 edition of the Annals of Human Genetics, geneticist Peter Forster of Cambridge published an article (“To Err is Human”) in which he documented that, to use his words, “more than half of the mtDNA sequencing studies ever published contain obvious errors.”

He then asked: “Does it matter? Unfortunately, in many cases it does.” Then came the crushing blow for “Mitochondrial Eve”: “…fundamental research papers, such as those claiming a recent African origin for mankind (Cann, et al., 1987; Vigilant, et al., 1991)…have been criticized, and rejected due to the extent of primary data errors” (67[1]:2, emp. added).

Then, as if to add salt to an already open and bleeding wound, Dr. Forster acknowledged that the errors discovered thus far are “only the tip of the iceberg…,” and that “there is no reason to suppose that DNA sequencing errors are restricted to mtDNA” (67[1]:2,3).

One month later, Nature weighed in with an exposé of its own. In the February 20, 2003 issue, Carina Dennis authored a commentary on Forster’s work titled “Error Reports Threaten to Unravel Databases of Mitochondrial DNA.” Dennis reiterated the findings that “more than half of all published studies of human mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) sequences contain mistakes.”

Then, after admitting that “published mtDNA sequences are popular tools for investigating the evolution and demography of human populations,” she lamented: “[T]he problem is far bigger than researchers had imagined. The mistakes may be so extensive that geneticists could be drawing incorrect conclusions to studies of human populations and evolution” (2003, 421:773,…
Apologetics Press: How Many Times does “Mitochondrial Eve” have to Die? by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D.

As we’ve stated; we fully expect the claims about “X-Woman” to be significantly dialed back once the actual DNA tests come back. In the past few years the harshest critics of this kind of ‘science” tend to other evolutionists with either competing theories or else a certain naïveté about their reasonable criticisms remaining in house.

Do we need to mention what happened to Ida last year? That “fossil” went from the missing link that would “change everything” to just “missing” in about six months. Ardi, another much ballyhooed missing link is also in danger of finding “himself” dead again.

Every few months these days there is a fossil find that evolutionists claim is going to “rewrite” human evolution. Here are a few of such claims going back several years.

Archaeological Finds Add New Chapter To Japanese History .
Oct 21, 1981
stone tools found in Japan supposedly 50,000 years old were going to require rewriting textbooks.

Evolution .Fossils Read To Decipher Human History .
Apr 20, 1994

the private Institute of Human origin in Berkeley, Robert (Walter and his .studies may even rewrite— — the history of human evolution over the past 4 million yean. …

Fossil find could rewrite human history
Thursday, 10 December, 1998, 10:24 GMT
“[This is] probably the most momentous palaeoanthropological find ever made in Africa,” Tobias said of Tanzanian four foot fossil

Article: The Observatory; In the world of anthropology, hypotheses compete for survival.
Jun 16, 1999
Recently as 1500 Years Ago Could Rewrite the Timeline for Human Evolution Mystery Skulls ……

New fossils heat up the battle over who was the first human.(EVOLUT…
Jul 23, 2001)

(EVOLUTION)(Society)(Brief Article) … find Newsweek articles. … Wood of George Washington University, you “have to rewrite human evolutionary history. …
Paleontologists working at a cave in Spain have found 780000-year-old fossils of what they say is a new species on the human family tree. …

Discovery of human-like fossils may rewrite the history of evolution
Jul 12, 2001

Scientists say the new fossils suggest strongly that humans split from apes and walked upright between seven million and nine million years ago …

Skull may rewrite our evolution — Fossil called start of human lineage By MARK
07-11-2002, EVANS,
In what may be the most startling fossil find in decades, scientists in central Africa say they have unearthed the oldest trace of a pre- human ancestor – a remarkably intact skull of an apelike species that may have walked upright as far back as 7 million years ago.
The thick-browed, flat-faced skull was found in Chad,

European fossils rewrite human evolution: Canadian professor
February 19, 2002
CBC News Fossils of ancient human relatives suggest the beginning of the evolution of apes and humans occurred in Europe, not Africa, says a University of Toronto anthropologist

Prehistoric Dwarf Skeleton May Rewrite Human Evolution .
Bangor Daily News – Google News Archive – Oct 28, 2004

Fossils rewrite human evolution – Oct 8, 2007

WELL PRESERVED: An ancient Homo erectus skull was found alongside a Homo habilis jawbone, suggesting early human ancestors may have lived together.

New ape species rewrites our evolutionary history
23 August 2007
Fossil teeth from Africa of a gorilla-like species suggest that the great apes may have evolved more slowly than thought …Emma Young

Ancient Skull May Rewrite Human History
Beijing Review – Mar 11, 2008

Li said that although Xuchang Man was not as old as other discoveries, the skull could “fill a huge gap in our knowledge of human evolution.” …

Georgian bones rewrite story of human evolution
ABC Regional Online – ABC Regional Online – Sep 26, 2009

So I think what we are getting now, the new evidence, is helping us to think more about how little we know about human evolution. …

Discovery suggests humans, apes evolved separately
National Post – Oct 1, 2009

And surprisingly, it’s also rewriting the story of our relation to gorillas and … a complete rewrite about what is known about human and ape evolution, …

Darwin’s theory stands on both feet
Edmonton Journal – Nov 13, 2009

A Canadian scientist has spearheaded a study that could rewrite a key chapter in the story of human evolution, tracing the emergence of one of our defining …

Ardi rewrites human history
Winnipeg Free Press – Feb 8, 2010

Ida: This Changes Everything! This fossil Will Rewrite Human History
April 2009

The Top 12 Science Stories of 2009 for Creationists/Believers.

Church of Darwin, Dinosaurs in Literature, Religious,, Science, Uncategorized, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 04 2010

By Chris Parker &, Copyright 2009

We thought that it might be fun and or interesting to compile a list of the science stories of 2009 that were most compatible with Special Creation; or which moved the scientific ball in that direction. Another basis for selecting these top 12 science stories for Creationists might be the illumination a story might shed on the myth of macro-evolution.

But first, a digression. I grew up reading science fiction stories. In my teen years I read science fiction almost exclusively. As a genre however, I’d say the themes of science fiction literature are at odds with the Bible more than any other. Its typically very humanist in its adoption of science and man as its heroes. Man can achieve through science, technology, grit, determination and that “special quality” that we alone possess says science fiction.

For non believers, there is something comforting in believing that though we are special, we are but one of thousands if not millions of alien species out there. These are “people” we can fight or form alliances with–but that we don’t have to bow down to. Even famous Atheist Dawkins, admitted that he could accept aliens as our creator–just not God.

Since the Bible places man at the “center of the universe”, the existence of aliens also refute the Bible and possibly the story of special creation in Genesis. The themes of science fiction typically conflict with those of the Bible.

I went to see Avatar last week and I enjoyed–the special effects. Mature Christians on a daily basis screen out news, information and media that conflict with their core beliefs. That’s why many of them don’t think its a big deal to see any movie regardless of theme. (For instance, they may take their kids to see a warlock hero movie knowing that according to Revelation; “those who practice magic arts” will be excluded from God’s Holy City” Rev 22.) How many Atheist parents do you suppose took their kids to see “The Ten Commandments” or “The Passion”?

I”ve had a few mature Christians tell me that they don’t need apologetics because their faith is strong. My question is; what about your young son or daughter or your grandson? Don’t they realize that many of them aren’t able to screen out the constant evolution/Atheist dogma that news and media put out there? Many of them find that when they reach college that they haven’t been prepared to deal with the scientific and philosophical challenges coming their way. There; because I said so or years of shrugs may not carry the day.

What I know about James Cameron, who directed Avatar is that he also was the Executive Producer behind the documentary:”The Lost Tomb of Jesus” which purported to have found the bones of Jesus Christ in a family tomb. They also suggested that He had a son with Mary Magdeline. In Avatar, he puts forth a “Mother Earth” Goddess and promotes the standard SciFi notion that consciousness can be stored on a computer.

Thankfully, secular scientists kicked dirt on his Jesus tomb and his “evidence” and like the first story on our List it has been given a wide berth.

Of course, such a list as this is totally and completely subjective. Here are our top 12 Science Stories of 2009 for Creationists/Believers.

1)The Fossil; Ida and the Explosive Pace of Evolution-ary Debunking

It was only about 7 months ago when “Science” came out with a multi-pronged, hard-hitting and extremely hyped story about a “missing link” about which it was said “This Changes Everything!”. They were referring of course to a tiny fossil that they had cleverly named “Ida” (for marketing purposes).

Ida was the subject of a simultaneous release of a book, a TV special and a scientific paper announcing its discovery. It would be impossible to overstate the hype associated with the fossil.

“This will be the one pictured in the textbooks for the next hundred years,” said Dr Jørn Hurum, the paleontologist from Oslo University’s Natural History Museum who assembled the scientific team to study the fossil.”

Curiously, it was other evolutionists rather than Creationists who were most critical of both the hype machine and the science surrounding Ida. An independent scientific review failed to uphold the initial claims about Ida and by October 2009, the headlines were like this one in Discover Magazine; “Much-Hyped Primate Fossil “Ida” Probably Isn’t Our Ancestor …”

Time Magazine, Scientific American, NewScientist and a host of other Science media failed to list “This changes Everything, Ida” in their Top 10 Science Stories of 2009—not even as a debacle.

Ida was replaced at the top of Time’s list by Ardi, actually discovered in 1992 and claimed to be our oldest ancestor. Scientific American placed Ardi at #3 without even a mention of that game changer; Ida.

Signs are not so good for Ardi either however. The same skepticism that confronted the scientific claims made about Ida are now being directed towards Ardi. In an article in the November 2009 edition of Scientific American entitled “How Humanlike Was “Ardi”?, -Ardi proponents continued to claim that Ardi was a human ancestor who walked upright, however, other experts begged to differ: from the article; “But many others in the field propose that some of these statements may be overblown. In fact, Jungers (a professor at Stony Brook) says, “I think some of the things they said might have been for effect.”

The fossil Ida debacle was an important story for believers in 2009 because it was the most forceful and coordinated attempt ever by the evolutionary cabal to push their “science” down our throats and within seven months it was overthrown so effectively that even the evolutionists are busy trying to forget it.

2) There’s No Such Thing as a ‘Simple’ Organism

Mycoplasma pneumoniae, has only 1/5 the number of genes as E Coli the single celled bacterium which is the most frequently studied.

“What may be the most thorough study ever of a single organism has produced a beta code for life’s essential subroutines, and shown that even the simplest creatures are more complex than scientists suspected.

The analysis combined information about gene regulation, protein production and cell structure in Mycoplasma pneumoniae, one of the simplest self-sustaining microbes.” Wired Magazine.

In evolutionary theory, single cells were supposed to have arisen by chance and this simple life would lead to more complex life through a process of evolution. The problem for evolutionists/materialists is; even the simplest single cells are incredibly complex. How could such complex cells assemble themselves spontaneously? Obviously, they could not have.

3) Octopus Fossils, Allegedly 95 Million Years Old? Who Gets the Surprise-Evolutionists or Bible Believers?

Whenever one hears about ants or bees or spiders or wasps etc. being found in amber, which are supposedly millions of years old, take note; they are clearly recognizable as; ants, bees, spiders or wasps, no matter how old science claims that they are.

Each of these discoveries are brought to the public in isolation; but the consistent pattern in the discovery of “millions of years old” fossils or of preserved creatures is that they have not changed. Even minute changes that science might point to as showing “evolution” over time can be accounted for by the genetic variation inherent in species.

So the question is; when is this supposed “evolution” occurring?

Recently, scientists discovered octopus fossils which were supposedly 95 million years old from the Cretaceous. If you’re an evolutionist, you were surprised by what was found; they were “virtually identical” to “modern” octopi. If you are a Bible believer, this is exactly what you expected.

Ironically, the San Francisco Examiner placed this story at Number 3 on their own list of 2009 science stories because of the rareness of the discovery itself;

“What is truly astonishing to the scientists is how similar these ancient creatures are to their modern-day counterparts. Dirk Fuchs, lead author on the study stated, “These things are 95 million years old, yet one of the fossils is almost indistinguishable from living species.” [EurekAlert]

Far and away, the best head in the sand, evolution quote of all however comes from Science Daily;

“This [lack of evolution] provides important evolutionary information.”

He who has an ear let him hear! Matt 11:15

4) Authenticated Human Footprint Overlaid by Dinosaur Print Found on Limestone Block

A Cretaceous Limestone block contains a human footprint overlaid with a dinosaur print.

“In early July, 2000 Alvis Delk, assisted by James Bishop (both of Stephenville, Texas), was working in the Cretaceous limestone on the McFall property at the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas and discovered a pristine human footprint intruded by a dinosaur footprint.

This discovery was made in the vicinity of McFall I and II Sites where the Creation Evidence Museum team has excavated since the Spring of 1982. The eleven-inch human footprint matches seven other such footprints of the same dimensions in the “Sir George Series”, named in honor of His Excellency Governor General Ratu Sir George Cacobau of Fiji.

Scientific Verification of Footprint Authenticity: The fossil was transported to a professional laboratory where 800 X-rays were performed in a CT Scan procedure. Laboratory technicians verified compression and distribution features clearly seen in both prints, human and dinosaur. This removes any possibility that the prints were carved or altered.” … CREATION EVIDENCE MUSEUM…..
s8intcom source:

5) Everything You Know About Natural Selection Is Wrong

“Oct 16, 2009 — It’s called “a fresh theoretical framework” but it undermines the popular conception of natural selection. It’s called a “dense and deep work on the foundations of evolutionary biology” but it criticizes as simplistic and false the ideas of Richard Dawkins, one of the most outspoken proponents of natural selection as “the greatest show on earth.”

It produces a new scheme for how natural selection works, but raises more questions than it answers. What is it? It’s a new book by Harvard philosopher Peter Godfrey-Smith, Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection (Oxford, 2009), reviewed mostly positively by Jay Odenbaugh in Science.

Odenbaugh is in the philosophy department of Lewis and Clark College, Oregon. Get ready to jettison your “classical” concepts of fitness, selection and reproductive success. Unload your simplistic ideas of gene selection, individual selection and group selection. Prepare to see Richard Dawkins demoted from his status as a leading spokesman for modern Darwinism. In his first paragraph, Odenbaugh clears the deck to get ready for the “fresh” ideas of Godfrey-Smith:

“Peter Godfrey-Smith’s Darwinian Populations and Natural Selection is a dense and deep work on the foundations of evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biologists tell us that evolution by natural selection occurs when a few ingredients are present—specifically, when there is variation with respect to a trait, those variants differ in the numbers of offspring produced, and this variation is heritable to some degree.

Unfortunately, as Godfrey-Smith argues, this recipe is far too simple, and even more complicated versions such as the replicator approach offered by Richard Dawkins suffer serious flaws.

This “classical recipe,” for example, ignores the fact that for some organisms numbers of offspring don’t necessarily determine reproductive success (“fitness”) whereas rates of population growth, age structure, or variation in expected numbers of offspring do.

Likewise, natural selection and patterns of heredity can “cancel” each other out, leaving no evolutionary change. The concept of Dawkins’s replicators—those entities that interact with like entities and of which copies are made—presupposes that there can be no reproduction without replication, which is false when we have continuously varying traits evolving by natural selection.

Thus, our standard models for understanding what evolution by natural selection is are just too simple. “” Jay Odenbaugh in Science

Source: David Coppedge’s Creation-Evolution Headlines

6) A Third of Dinosaur Species Never Existed?

“That’s because young dinosaurs didn’t look like Mini-Me versions of their parents, according to new analyses by paleontologists Mark Goodwin, University of California, Berkeley, and Jack Horner, of Montana State University.

Instead, like birds and some other living animals, the juveniles went through dramatic physical changes during adulthood.

This means many fossils of young dinosaurs, including T. rex relatives, have been misidentified as unique species, the researchers argue. “ National Geographic News, Oct. 9, 2009

This combined with the news that scientists had overestimated the size of dinosaurs by as much as 50% (Dinosaurs Shed a Few Tons in Science Makeover)shows that certain scientists need to show a little more humility whilst pontificating about the “paleontological past” and—fewer dinosaurs needed for Noah’s Ark!

7) Dinosaur Proteins, Cells and Blood Vessels Recovered from Bracyhlophosaurus

Two years ago, when paleontologist Mary Schweitzer claimed to have obtained blood cells and collagen protein from the thigh bones of a fossilized Tyrannosaurus Rex, she got nothing but grief.
Paleontologists didn’t want to hear that living tissue had been found on a creature they claimed had lived and died more than 65 million years ago. They have in large measure refused to believe or accept that she had found living tissue.

Creationists on the other hand, were happy to accept that she had found living tissue, but rightly pointed out that it was a strong indication that this dinosaur had lived much more recently than science claimed. In fact, Christians rather expected that living tissue might be found on dinosaur remains.

This of course upset the evolutionists even more and did little for her credibility with her fellow paleontologists.

“Last year, one group reinterpreted the so-called soft tissues as nothing more than bacterial biofilms, “cities” of bacteria not unlike the plaque on your teeth or slime on moist rocks. ”

If Schweitzer keeps this up she might end up like Virginia Steen-McIntyre, who also gave them what they didn’t want. That’s because Schweitzer has done it again. This time she claims to have found living tissue in the bones of a dinosaur more than 80,000,000 years old.

We say, as long as we’re dealing with evolutionary “monopoly years”, why not living tissue a billion years old? And we say along with her fellow paleontologists; there’s no way that living tissue could survive that long in fossilized remains”…

#8) “So We Make Up Stories” About Human Evolution

“Dr. Richard Lewontin is the Alexander Agassiz Research Professor at the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University. Harvard University Press describes him as one of their “most brilliant evolutionary biologists.” A Harvard professor since 1973, he has impeccable academic credentials, and has gained worldwide notoriety for authoring several books, including The Triple Helix, The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change, and Biology as Ideology.

During the week of February 14-18, Dr. Lewontin was invited to speak at the American Association for the Advancement of Science’s annual meeting held in Boston, Massachusetts. Michale Balter, writing for Science magazine, reported briefly on Lewontin’s comments that caused quite a stir in the evolutionary community.

Balter titled his article “How Human Intelligence Evolved—Is It Science or ‘Paleofantasy’?” (2008). In the first paragraph, Balter quipped that Lewontin really “knows how to grab an audience’s attention.”

What did Lewontin say that was so noteworthy and attention-grabbing? Lewontin “led off a session titled ‘The Mind of a Toolmaker’ by announcing that scientists know next to nothing about how humans got so smart.

‘We are missing the fossil record of human cognition,’ Lewontin said at the meeting. ‘So we make up stories’” (Balter, 2008, emp. added). While Balter spent the rest of his article scrambling to show that Lewontin’s conclusions are not recognized by all in the scientific community, Lewontin’s devastating blow to evolution’s long-cherished scenario of human development could not be papered over so easily”… by Kyle Butt, M.A. Apologetic’s Press

9) The Copernican Gambit

In this cosmic game of chess, which has been going on at least from the time of the scientific revolution, there have been moves and countermoves on the part of Theists and Materialists with respect to the origin of the universe.

We live in a universe fine tuned for life. This knowledge grudgingly comes from science, not from believers, even though it is what we would expect. Science is stuck on its side of the chessboard throwing out weird defenses like dark matter and dark energy which are needed to make big bang work.

This dark matter and energy which supposedly accounts for 95% of matter and energy can’t be seen, tested or measured. This kind of thing, along with superstring theory, which also can’t be falsified or tested, is making it difficult for the well read Materialist to be intellectually fulfilled.

“But now, scientists “Blake Temple and Joel Smoller, mathematicians at the University of California and the University of Michigan, believe they have come up with a whole new set of calculations that allow for all the sums to add up without the need for this controversial substance.”

At the last moment, a new strategy; the Copernican Gambit; (our name) a possible way to fix the big bang theory and to free materialists from the pressure of defending a theory that only accounts for 4% to 5% of observations. Can materialistic creation be saved?

‘The new research, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, is likely to be equally controversial as the work it purports to challenge especially as it relies on our galaxy being at the centre of the Universe”….

The Copernican principle is the presumption that there is nothing special about our place in space and time; neither us humans nor our planet. That principle moved earth and man out of the center of the universe (as Genesis seems to place us) and makes the earth just another lonely planet circling a star. This theory would relieve science of the need to invent and sustain its mystical darks but would place earth and man squarely back into the center of the universe.

“Just when we thought we were out, (of the center) they pulled us back in”!

It probably should be called the “Reverse Copernican Gambit”.
Orginal treatment here

10)Climategate: Global Warming Might Not be Man Made-But the Data May Be

The great climate change science scandal. Thousands of leaked e-mails have
revealed the unwillingness of climate change scientists to engage in a proper debate with the sceptics who doubt global warming. Thus, a little of the “Inconvenient Truth” leaked out.

The emails indicate that they have hidden, obscured and even deleted data contrary to the global warming case. They have worked to deny skeptics the right to publish dissent in scientific journals and have created statistical ‘tricks” to make charts appear to show what they want them to show.

Believers should along with everyone else do everything they can to take care of our planet. Believers do believe that the world will end with “fervent heat” but that the cause will be God—not man.

More Here

11) Mammoth, Giant Sloth and the Whale Fossils found ‘Together” at Thomas Jefferson Law School Construction Site

How does science account for the discovery of the fossils of giant land and ocean creatures together in such close proximity? Fossils are rare because the conditions necessary for their formation are thought to be rare.

What calamity could account for the simultaneous death, instant burial and preservation of these giant sea and land creatures?

Believers should have little trouble conceiving of just such a scenario. Consult the book of Genesis.

Orginal post: “This Weak in Fossils”

12) Poll Reveals Public Doubts over Charles Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

Belief in creationism is widespread in Britain, according to a new survey.
By Jonathan Wynne-Jones, Religious Affairs Correspondent
Telegraph UK 31 Jan 2009

“This year marks the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin’s birth, and the 150th anniversary of the publication of The Origin of Species.

More than half of the public believe that the theory of evolution cannot explain the full complexity of life on Earth, and a “designer” must have lent a hand, the findings suggest. And one in three believe that God created the world within the past 10,000 years. ” … Jonathan Wynne-Jones

Orginal Post

This was our own subjective list of the Top Science Stories of 2009 for Christians. I’m sure that our list missed some important news. What do you think?

To comment, send an email to and we’ll post here for you.

The Last Vestige of the Mythical Vestigial Organ Claim?

Church of Darwin, Religious, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Aug 24 2009

Psalm 139:14
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well

These authors are careful to say that they are not disparaging Darwin as they disassemble several Darwinist cornerstones. Remember how Darwinists used to try to hammer believers with that whole vestigial organ take? The same thing was done with “junk DNA”. If there was a Creator, they asked, why would He make imperfect DNA? (This was before science bagan to understand how important “junk” DNA really is).

What these two topics have in common is that they are examples of how Darwinists have attempted to use their own ignorance as a hammer to pound believers and as a crutch to support Darwinism. In the end, will every important Darwinist theory or supposition be proved incorrect while the theory itself remains viable for evolutionary believers? Or will belief in Darwinism by evolutionists become vestigial; “Occurring or persisting as a rudimentary or degenerate structure”………

Thanks to:Geoff G.
The Appendix: Useful and in Fact Promising
Charles Q. Choi
Special to LiveScience

The body’s appendix has long been thought of as nothing more than a worthless evolutionary artifact, good for nothing save a potentially lethal case of inflammation.

Now researchers suggest the appendix is a lot more than a useless remnant. Not only was it recently proposed to actually possess a critical function, but scientists now find it appears in nature a lot more often than before thought. And it’s possible some of this organ’s ancient uses could be recruited by physicians to help the human body fight disease more effectively.

In a way, the idea that the appendix is an organ whose time has passed has itself become a concept whose time is over.

“Maybe it’s time to correct the textbooks,” said researcher William Parker, an immunologist at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. “Many biology texts today still refer to the appendix as a ‘vestigial organ.’”

Slimy sac

The vermiform appendix is a slimy dead-end sac that hangs between the small and large intestines. No less than Charles Darwin first suggested that the appendix was a vestigial organ from an ancestor that ate leaves, theorizing that it was the evolutionary remains of a larger structure, called a cecum, which once was used by now-extinct predecessors for digesting food.

“Everybody likely knows at least one person who had to get their appendix taken out – slightly more than 1 in 20 people do – and they see there are no ill effects, and this suggests that you don’t need it,” Parker said.

However, Parker and his colleagues recently suggested that the appendix still served as a vital safehouse where good bacteria could lie in wait until they were needed to repopulate the gut after a nasty case of diarrhea. Past studies had also found the appendix can help make, direct and train white blood cells.

Now, in the first investigation of the appendix over the ages, Parker explained they discovered that it has been around much longer than anyone had suspected, hinting that it plays a critical function.

“The appendix has been around for at least 80 million years, much longer than we would estimate if Darwin’s ideas about the appendix were correct,” Parker said.

Moreover, the appendix appears in nature much more often than previously acknowledged. It has evolved at least twice, once among Australian marsupials such as the wombat and another time among rats, lemmings, meadow voles, Cape dune mole-rats and other rodents, as well as humans and certain primates.

“When species are divided into groups called ‘families,’ we find that more than 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups contain species with an appendix,” Parker said.

Several living species, including several lemurs, certain rodents and the scaly-tailed flying squirrel, still have an appendix attached to a large cecum, which is used in digestion. Darwin had thought appendices appeared in only a small handful of animals.

“We’re not saying that Darwin’s idea of evolution is wrong – that would be absurd, as we’re using his ideas on evolution to do this work,” Parker told LiveScience. “It’s just that Darwin simply didn’t have the information we have now.”

He added, “If Darwin had been aware of the species that have an appendix attached to a large cecum, and if he had known about the widespread nature of the appendix, he probably would not have thought of the appendix as a vestige of evolution.”

What causes appendicitis?

Darwin was also not aware that appendicitis, or a potentially deadly inflammation of the appendix, is not due to a faulty appendix, but rather to cultural changes associated with industrialized society and improved sanitation, Parker said.

“Those changes left our immune systems with too little work and too much time their hands – a recipe for trouble,” he said. “Darwin had no way of knowing that the function of the appendix could be rendered obsolete by cultural changes that included widespread use of sewer systems and clean drinking water.”

Now that scientists are uncovering the normal function of the appendix, Parker notes a critical question to ask is whether anything can be done to prevent appendicitis. He suggests it might be possible to devise ways to incite our immune systems today in much the same manner that they were challenged back in the Stone Age.

“If modern medicine could figure out a way to do that, we would see far fewer cases of allergies, autoimmune disease, and appendicitis,” Parker said.

The scientists detailed their findings online August 12 in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology.

The Origin of Life: the Chirality Problem

Church of Darwin,, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Mar 17 2009


Nothing beats the creative imagination and storytelling capabilities of the darwinists. However, some other branches of science are quickly catching up. Theorectical science has it seems become largely a right brain function where storytelling and creative thinking have had to come to the fore in an attempt to explain the unacceptable.

For instance; problems with the big bang theory? Science creatively invents dark matter and now dark energy; both invisible and undetectable to support a theory that otherwise wouldn’t fit observation and measurement. Note that “dark matter” isn’t supposed to merely exist at the margins, up to 95% of the universe is said to be made up of this invisible stuff.

String theory is a story created by cosmologists-and others to account for the maddening (for science) realization that we live in an anthropic universe–one it appears–that is specifically tailored for life. Creatively, science is hanging its hat on the idea that this problem is explainable because there are actually an infinite number of universes occupying the same space and that we just happen to live in the one universe that can support life. Naturally, those other universes are undetectable.

How did a complex language get into the cells of everything living? Pretend that it makes perfect sense that languages which can be read and understood by both a sender and a reciever can, arise by chance without intelligence or a designer.

Another vexing problem for materialists is the chirality problem. Basically, amino acids occur in nature as either “right handed” or “left handed” on a 50%/50% basis. If life randomly assembled itself under these conditions, how to account for the fact that living organisms are made up of only the “left handed” versions? There is no biochemical reason why this should be so. The answer; maybe the life in this universe was seeded by asteroids and meteorites from outer space-which were entirely left-handed!

Notice how many times “maybe” and “could of” and the like appear in a “hard science” article. For more information on this “problem”, see Origin of Life and the Chirality Problem, by Jonathan Sarfati …

The Scientist: NewsBlog:
Did lefty molecules seed life?
Posted by Elie Dolgin
16th March 2009

The molecular orientation of compounds brought to Earth by meteorites could have determined the world’s chemistry long before life began, according to a new study published online today (Mar. 16) in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Amino acids come in left-handed and right-handed forms, which, like a pair of human hands, are mirror images that cannot be superimposed onto each other. Yet living organisms use only the left-handed version, which presents a conundrum: There’s no biochemical reason why one mirror image should be better than the other, so scientists have long debated whether life’s left-handed leaning arose because of random processes or whether rocks from outer space seeded a southpaw solar system.

The current study argues for the latter possibility by showing that some extraterrestrial meteorites contain an abundance of left-handed molecules. “The implications are that all life in our solar system could be the same handedness as life on Earth,” Jeffrey Bada, a geochemist at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, Calif., who was not involved in the research, told The Scientist.

Daniel Glavin and Jason Dworkin, astrobiologists at NASA’s Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, MD, compared the ratio of left- and right-handed 5-carbon amino acids found in six primitive, carbon-rich meteorites that have an elemental composition similar to that presumably found in the early solar system. Three of these rocks were heavily left-skewed, while the remaining three showed equal handedness, or chirality, the researchers found. Of the lefty rocks, the meteorite that fell on Murchison, Australia, in 1969 — arguably the most widely studied carbonaceous meteorite in the world — contained the largest imbalance ever observed: a 18.5% excess of the left-handed form of the amino acid isovaline.

“There really is a large, 15 to 20% excess for this particular amino acid, and it has important implications for homochirality [single-handedness] and the origins of life,” Glavin told The Scientist.

Maybe life was biased toward left-handedness in our solar system” said Dworkin. The possibility that left-handed amino acids are so prevalent in our solar system is “bad news in looking for independent origins of life,” he noted, because it decreases the chances of researchers stumbling upon an organism that uses only right-handed amino acids — a clear trademark of alien life. “But it’s also good news” for the possibility of a second origin, because single-handedness is essential for biotic chemistry as we know it. Thus, a meteorite-driven imbalance could have helped “jumpstart” early life, he said.

Paul Davies, a theoretical physicist and astrobiologist at Arizona State University (ASU) in Tempe who was not involved in the study, was not convinced by this argument. “Even if there’s this slight excess at the outset there has to be some sort of mechanism that’s going to amplify that to make it 100%,” he said.

The mechanism that Glavin and Dworkin propose to explain the observed left-handed excess is that polarized light — which is twisted and can rotate molecules — probably set the imbalance in motion. Then, once the balance was slightly askew, water within the meteorites further drove an enrichment of left-handed amino acids in the liquid phase and relegated right-handed molecules to the solid phase. “The whole amplification is due to this process of aqueous alteration,” said Dworkin.

But the link between water-bearing rocks and a left-handed skew is just a correlation, said ASU biochemist Sandra Pizzarello, who was also not involved with the work. “It’s just a supposition,” she said. “I would have liked them to back it up with physico-chemical possibilities.”

Glavin pointed to the work of Columbia University’s Ronald Breslow and Imperial College’s Donna Blackmond, which has demonstrated that this so-called “enantiomeric enrichment” can occur in a liquid phase, such as the one found during the melting of ice inside the meteorites’ parent asteroid.

Still, even if aqueous alteration can explain the build-up of left-handed molecules, it doesn’t explain the disappearance of their mirror images, noted Robert Hazen, a geochemist at the Carnegie Institution in Washington, DC. “Where did the right-handed amino acids go? They had to go somewhere else… There has to be a destruction process.”

Bada also noted that the left-skewed, 5-carbon amino acids described by the authors are not the same molecules that are used by life on Earth. The 20-odd protein building blocks that living beings rely on showed no such bias in the meteorites, the NASA researchers found, so to get homochirality in life there would need to be some mechanism of transferring the single-handedness between different types of amino acids.

The origins of life remain “one of those bewildering things,” Bada said. “If there was a straight-forward answer for the homochirality of amino acids, I think we would have found it.”

A Response to A Christian Friend on His Theory Suggesting How Creationists and Evolutionists Might Both Be Correct

Church of Darwin, Religious,, Science, Sophistication of Ancestors, Uncategorized | Posted by Chris Parker
Jan 31 2009

by chris parker,

I read your article last night and of course various thoughts came up either in support or disagreement with the various ideas and theories you shared. It would have been better to respond last night when my recollection was fresh. I couldn’t at that time so here are some initial thoughts from the best of my recollection.

First, thanks very much for sharing because as the Bible says, iron sharpens iron. I appreciated that you endeavored to use scripture as support for your thoughts as well. Here are a few of my thoughts on your paper as I think of them now, probably out of order.


Notwithstanding your own definition of creationism, I have often made the claim that I am not a “creationist” because it is an ill-defined term subject to the whim of the one who would define it. What I am, is a Christian, and as such believe that God created the universe in six days. But if such a belief makes me a creationist, then I am also a “global floodist”, a Son of God-ist”, a “resurrectionist ” etc. These things I believe as a consequence of being a “Bible believing Christian” or more to the point, a Christian.

All Christians should in fact be all of those things-and more. There are those, presumably all in the camp of non-Christian, who believe that the universe is “self creating” and that it was “accidental” and non-purposeful–those are materialists;- and there are those, called Christians, who believe that the earth and the universe were purposely created by God.

Whatever your precise definition, it seems to me that those are the essential differences that matter. Do you believe the Bible’s account or do you believe science’s account is the question. As for myself, I am a Christian, and this encompasses certain beliefs– and to try to define me by one of them seeks somehow to “divide and conquer” me from the totality of my acceptance of what the Bible teaches.

Splitting the Difference

In the years up to 1850 or so, most scientists were “Christians” or at least believers in God and sought to explain God’s universe. In those days, Newton, Galileo and many others advanced the cause of science but did so without seeing a conflict between God and science, because they believed in God. Their sceince was for the purpose of illuminating God’s universe. Atheists prior to Darwin had various beliefs, but no real scientific construct to fit them in.

Darwinism and then the Big bang theory gave these Atheists a plausible scientific framework upon which to build their own system of belief. This is what led famous Atheist Richard Dawkins to say over 20 years ago that Darwinian evolution allowed him to become “an intellectually fulfilled atheist.”

As you know, behind such doctrines or beliefs are the devil as you wrote, and you were right to see that. However, I think that you have failed to see that some of the false beliefs that they’ve put out there have “survived” and caused good men to react by seeking a way to harmonize what the Bible says with what science says. I think that you’ve rightly seen much of that which is false, but have assumed that some of what merely props up the system to actually be scientific and true (when its not) and that this then needs to also be incorporated into your Biblical belief system.

This results in my opinion to splitting the difference between creationism (Christianity) and materialism (Atheism).

On the Origin of the Universe

The First Law, of Physics, or the First Law or the Conservation of Matter and Energy states that: “Matter can neither be created nor destroyed” (matter can be converted from one form to another). This is true, and is believed by all science and scientists, but what are its implications?

The implication of the First Law is; either the Universe is eternal, that it has always existed, or; that matter and energy were created outside the laws of this Universe itself (because within the laws of the universe matter never could have been created). As to the first, hypothesis; the Universe can not be eternal because of the Second law of Physics; entropy.

That is, all systems become more unstable over time, break down and eventually stop–unless more energy is put into the system. Unfortunately for those who believe the universe is eternal, the amount of matter and energy has remained constant because no matter is being created or destroyed (first law). The Universe cannot be eternal where entropy exists. It would have wound down by now. Put another way, the universe is like a clock that eventually winds down -unless it is rewound (energy put in).

This is why there is a “big bang theory”; because Christians and materialists agree that the Universe had a beginning. Now if it had a beginning, how was matter created when given the laws of this universe, matter cannot be created (or destroyed)? The answer is that the Universe was created by someone or something–outside of the universe itself and outside the laws of this Universe itself.

This points, rather plainly to a Creator who can work outside the laws of this universe-and who can create the laws under which the universe will exist. Genesis, Hebrews and John 1:1 tell us that the Lord Jesus Christ, was the actual Creator. One thing I take note of is that Hebrews says that He “sustains all things”. This is continuing and ongoing.

“Long ago God spoke to our ancestors in many and various ways by the prophets, 2but in these last days he has spoken to us by a Son, whom he appointed heir of all things, through whom he also created the worlds. 3He is the reflection of God’s glory and the exact imprint of God’s very being, and he sustains all things by his powerful word. When he had made purification for sins, he sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, 4having become as much superior to angels as the name he has inherited is more excellent than theirs.” (NRSV Hebrews 1: 1-4)

Note this with that in mind; there is something called the “Quantum Enigma”, this is something that science keeps close to the vest and that you won’t hear from materialists. The enigma is an offshoot of “quantum mechanics” a set of principles underlying the most fundamental known description of all physical systems; more fundamental than classical mechanics and classical field theory.

Cutting to the chase, scientists have discovered an enigma that can only be explained if the universe is “conscious” in some respect. My own theory is that the universe exists in the “mind” of God. If you want to read about this enigma, here’s a link: The Quantum Enigma Online

This idea that the universe exists in the mind of God may at first seem trivial or possibly like bad science fiction. But I have Max Planc, Nobel prize winner in physics and one who some call the father of quantum theory backing me up as it were:

“As a man who has devoted his whole life to the most clear headed science, to the study of matter, I can tell you as a result of my research about atoms this much:

There is no matter as such.

All matter originates and exists only by virtue of a force which brings the particle of an atom to vibration and holds this most minute solar system of the atom together.

We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent mind. This mind is the matrix of all matter”.

Again, scripture in the form of a letter written by the Apostle Paul to the Collosians says much the same thing when describing the “Incomparable Christ”:

“He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.

For by Him all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him.

He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together…Col 1:17

On Evolution

In early 2008, a bear was shot and killed and discovered (in Alaska?) to have been part grizzly and part polar bear, if memory serves. This was thought to be a big deal. Over the years I’ve been sent snarling emails by non-believers asking about; polar bears on the ark, or penguins or other cold weather creatures and asked where did they find these in the desert of Palestine or in Turkey etc.

The answer is of course that there probably were no polar bears on the ark. There were however, bears. The mating of those two types of bears last year showed that by and large bears can mate with bears. The polar and grizzly bears are just examples of the variation already built in by the Creator. (Also there are penguins that live in South Africa so they only needed penguins on the ark, not Arctic penguins)

You mentioned the “evolution” of plants and animals by breeding. This is the use of the genetic variation already built in to all plants and animals. The mistake Darwin made, and one that I believe you are making–and that in fact materialists and evolution defenders make is that this variation is “evolution”. This is in fact the intentional breeding of inherent characterics which were built in so that plants and animals could adapt to the various environments on earth.

What you can’t do however is to create a new species using this inherent variation. You cannot make a dog into a cat for example. Unfortunately, this ability (to make a new species by using inherent variation) either by man or by “natures” intervention is exactly what is needed for “evolution” to work or to be true.

I don’t know how long the polar and grizzly bears were separated–hundreds of years, maybe a thousand–but because they were still bears, even after this long time, they could still breed. Lions, tigers, panthers are all from the same stock and can breed. So can, wolves, dogs and foxes. So, yes there is the ability for animals and plants to adapt–but there is no ability for them to evolve. This is a myth.

Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard evolutionist said; “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches … in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the gradual transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and fully formed.”

This guy, the most famous paleontologist of the century, an ardent evolutionist, confirms the Biblical text:

Gen1:11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

Gould lets out perhaps the worst kept “trade secret” in history; that there are no transitional forms and that each species appears in the fossil record, “fully formed”. If a non-believing scientist admits what the Word of God states, how does a Christian continue to believe that perhaps God created using “evolution”? There is no evidence that this was the case either in scripture–or in the fossil record.

But let’s go further. This is what Michael Denton, PhD, an evolutionist said about The Disappointing Promise of Molecular Biology for the Theory of Evolution–in an article of that name; “Instead of revealing a multitude of transitional forms through which the evolution of the cell might have occurred, molecular biology has served only to emphasize the enormity of the gap.

We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature.

Between a living cell and the most highly ordered non-biological system, such as a crystal or a snowflake, there is a chasm as vast and absolute as it is possible to conceive….

Molecular biology has also shown that the basic design of the cell system is essentially the same in all living systems on earth from bacteria to mammals. In all organisms the roles of DNA, mRNA and protein are identical. The meaning of the genetic code is also virtually identical in all cells. The size, structure and component design of the protein synthetic machinery is practically the same in all cells.

In terms of the basic biochemical design, therefore no living system can be thought of as being primitive or ancestral with respect to any other system, nor is there the slightest empirical hint of an evolutionary sequence among all the incredibly diverse cells on earth.

For those who hoped that molecular biology might bridge the gulf between chemistry and biochemistry, the revelation was profoundly disappointing.”…….Michael Denton, Phd

Darwin himself, no doubt a cheerful sort, whined; “the number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on Earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and strata full of such intermediate links?……….this perhaps is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”.

Yes. Exactly.

There is no need for a system of thought that seeks to incorporate both “creationism” and “evolutionism” as you’ve defined them. The Christians (creationists) are right!

On the Age of the Earth and Ape men

Believing that science was reporting the facts in a straightforward and unbiased manner, certain Christians sought to harmonize the “cave-men” who according to science lived millions of years ago with scripture which suggested that man was created in God’s image a few thousand years ago.

This is what has happened since; all of these supposed ape men have turned out to be either men or apes–there are no creatures now thought to be transitional between apes and men. That is why the search goes on for the missing link. Neanderthal and Cro-Magnon, whose early depictions caused some weak kneed Christians to formulate the “Gap theory” -in order to protect the Bible from science, have in the case of Cro-Magnon been recognized as fully modern; in the case of Neanderthal all but a few stubborn scientists also recognize as being fully human.

In a way, the ape-men bolstered the supposed age of the earth as millions and billons of years old. This is because if there really were ape men and cavemen–some Christians wondered, when did they live and where did modern man come from? In reality, the caveman existed only in the mind’s eye of evolutionists and on the canvases of illustrators for science publications. The DNA and the artifacts found with these men prove that they were simply men-some of which lived in caves. As an example, a scientist in Germany managed to sequence Neanderthal DNA and found that it matched “modern man’s” to 99.999%. This is the same degree to which your DNA matches your next door neighbors.

In his book “Shattering the Myths of Darwinism”, Richard Milton, a science writer, in the chapter called “Rock of Ages”, on dating methods relates that, Dr. Melvin Cook, a physical chemist, and then a professor of metallurgy at Utah University and a world renowned expert on explosives, was prevented from publishing a book entitled “Anomalous Chronometry in the Atmosphere and Hydrosphere” because it provided direct evidence of the short-time chronometry of the earth and its oceans.

This chapter of Milton’s book relates the various problems with all “scientific” dating methods and reveals the wide disparity of results achieved using the various methods and the basic problems with each method. His summation aside, clearly you must understand that there can be no objective way to date the universe or the Earth–only a set of assumptions, some built on top of other assumptions, none of which can be proven or unproven.

Milton gives an example of one errant, published, reading using the potassium-argon method. This method was created specifically to overcome some of the problems inherent in other dating methods such as radiocarbon or uranium lead. Volcanic rocks from Mount Kilauea, which were known to have been created in a volcanic eruption in 1801 gave a potassium-argon date of 3,000,000,000 years.

Milton ends that chapter with this:

The fact is that presently it is impossible to say with any confidence how old the earth is, beyond the obvious fact that it predates the calendar of human history’.


Materialism is a system of beliefs intended to provide a way to be intellectually fulfilled as non-believers in God. Evolution is one of its major tenets as is an old Earth, made necessary only because evolution requires it. If you have the opportunity to read their own writings and combine that along with logic, it is easy to see that these systems of belief are “faith based” and not supported by objective evidence.

I understand that in the past, the Catholic church and perhaps other denominations either adopted or co-opted some of the customs of foreign peoples once converted and included those customs into their versions of Christianity.

There is no need to sully the faith of Christianity with that of the faith of Materialism. No need to explain cave-men or ape-men. These are not mentioned in Genesis so that there is no need to stretch the text and no need to “protect” the Bible from the advancement of science. There is no need for a way to explain vast ages before Adam and no need to explain how creatures evolved. This has not occurred as verified by the science of breeding, by biology and by the fossil record.

‘Junk’ DNA Proves Functional; Helps Explain Human Differences From Other Species, Science, Unexplained Artifact | Posted by Chris Parker
Nov 06 2008

There’s an awful lot of infomation in DNA. So much so that evolutionists might have to deal with the who and the how of that information content. Evolutionists went on offense and claimed that only 2% of that information made any sense or was used by the cell and therefore this “junk” DNA more or less proved that life wasn’t created by God. Junk within DNA was bad design and therefore evolution better explained the existence of this conserved but useless information, they opined .

In the past few years, science has began to understand that “Junk” DNA serves very important functions. In other words, their lack of knowledge was used a proof against creationism. Now that they find that they were wrong, they now assert that this new important DNA supports evolutionary theory as well. Dawkins wasn’t the only guilty party but here is a portion of one of his arrogant quotes on the subject;

“Once again, creationists might spend some earnest time speculating on why the Creator should bother to litter genomes with untranslated pseudogenes and junk tandem repeat DNA. … Can we measure the information capacity of that portion of the genome which is actually used? We can at least estimate it. In the case of the human genome it is about 2%, considerably less than the proportion of my hard disc that I have ever used since I bought it….Richard Dawkins, “The Information Challenge.” the skeptic. 18,4. Autumn 1998

Related Posts Here DNA Section

ScienceDaily (Nov. 5, 2008) — In a paper published in Genome Research on Nov. 4, scientists at the Genome Institute of Singapore (GIS) report that what was previously believed to be “junk” DNA is one of the important ingredients distinguishing humans from other species.

More than 50 percent of human DNA has been referred to as “junk” because it consists of copies of nearly identical sequences. A major source of these repeats is internal viruses that have inserted themselves throughout the genome at various times during mammalian evolution.

Using the latest sequencing technologies, GIS researchers showed that many transcription factors, the master proteins that control the expression of other genes, bind specific repeat elements. The researchers showed that from 18 to 33% of the binding sites of five key transcription factors with important roles in cancer and stem cell biology are embedded in distinctive repeat families.

Over evolutionary time, these repeats were dispersed within different species, creating new regulatory sites throughout these genomes. Thus, the set of genes controlled by these transcription factors is likely to significantly differ from species to species and may be a major driver for evolution.

This research also shows that these repeats are anything but “junk DNA,” since they provide a great source of evolutionary variability and might hold the key to some of the important physical differences that distinguish humans from all other species.

The GIS study also highlighted the functional importance of portions of the genome that are rich in repetitive sequences.

“Because a lot of the biomedical research use model organisms such as mice and primates, it is important to have a detailed understanding of the differences between these model organisms and humans in order to explain our findings,” said Guillaume Bourque, Ph.D., GIS Senior Group Leader and lead author of the Genome Research paper.

“Our research findings imply that these surveys must also include repeats, as they are likely to be the source of important differences between model organisms and humans,” added Dr. Bourque. “The better our understanding of the particularities of the human genome, the better our understanding will be of diseases and their treatments.”

“The findings by Dr. Bourque and his colleagues at the GIS are very exciting and represent what may be one of the major discoveries in the biology of evolution and gene regulation of the decade,” said Raymond White, Ph.D., Rudi Schmid Distinguished Professor at the Department of Neurology at the University of California, San Francisco, and chair of the GIS Scientific Advisory Board.

“We have suspected for some time that one of the major ways species differ from one another – for instance, why rats differ from monkeys – is in the regulation of the expression of their genes: where are the genes expressed in the body, when during development, and how much do they respond to environmental stimuli,” he added.

“What the researchers have demonstrated is that DNA segments carrying binding sites for regulatory proteins can, at times, be explosively distributed to new sites around the genome, possibly altering the activities of genes near where they locate. The means of distribution seem to be a class of genetic components called ‘transposable elements’ that are able to jump from one site to another at certain times in the history of the organism. The families of these transposable elements vary from species to species, as do the distributed DNA segments which bind the regulatory proteins.”

Dr. White also added, “This hypothesis for formation of new species through episodic distributions of families of gene regulatory DNA sequences is a powerful one that will now guide a wealth of experiments to determine the functional relationships of these regulatory DNA sequences to the genes that are near their landing sites. I anticipate that as our knowledge of these events grows, we will begin to understand much more how and why the rat differs so dramatically from the monkey, even though they share essentially the same complement of genes and proteins.”