Objections to Non-Hereditary Changes that Become Heritable (April 1, 2020, 7 Nisan 5780)
1. Preamble by Yair Davidiy.
3. Objections to Non-Hereditary Changes that Become Heritable by Stephen Phillips
1. Preamble by Yair Davidiy.
Scientists now believe that organisms can change within one or two generations and that these changes become hereditary. They explain these phenomena by Transposable elements and Horizontal gene transfer. We have from the very beginning held that
organisms can change within one or two generations and that these changes become hereditary. We did not have an explanation for it. Now the scientists have provided one. They may be wrong but for the moment the proof seems to be on their side and this corresponds with what we see to be evidence on the ground.
We do not see this as proof of Evolution.
Steve Philips however does and for this and other reasons takes exception to it.
We has sent us lengthy notes on the matters and it is only fair that the public be enabled to consider his opinion. The notes are therefore shown below.
A transposable element (TE, transposon, or jumping gene) is a DNA sequence that can change its position within a genome [i.e. within an organism], sometimes creating or reversing mutations and altering the cell's genetic identity.
Horizontal gene transfer
Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) or lateral gene transfer (LGT) is the movement of genetic material between unicellular and/or multicellular organisms other than by the ("vertical") transmission of DNA from parent to offspring (reproduction).
Gene delivery can be seen as an artificial horizontal gene transfer, and is a form of genetic engineering.
by Steve Phillips
Just one quick question: Am I right in assuming that you are confusing Horizontal Gene Transfers (HGTs) with transposons? I ask because you write "it provides a solution for a problem we were hitherto stumped with". I can assure you that we are not stumped. You hit the nail on the head in your email dated 24 Feb 2020 (Brit-Am Now no. 3039) when you attributed these changes to transposons, but you then went off topic by talking about DNA which we have inherited from fruit flies and nematode worms, resorting to evolutionists' fanciful teachings. Note that HGTs are something completely different to transposons. It is a known scientific fact that the DNA changes we observe today are due to a combination of transposons and epigenetic changes, the latter being the ability of a cell to switch certain functions of a cell on or off.
As I have pointed out in a previous email, transposons are bits of DNA which have been transferred from one part of the cell to another. All of this occurs WITHIN the cell, however, all of our cells are connected by a neural network to the brain, so the instructions affect all the relevant cells in our body which all undergo the same change simultaneously, and (as you have stated) these can be in response to environmental conditions. The polar bear and the brown bear, for example, are very different in appearance (their fur, for example, is totally different) yet the genetic evidence shows that they are derived from the same original bear:
"Based on nuclear and mitochondrial genome analysis, polar bears (U. maritimus) hybridized with 'ABC island' brown bears (U. arctos) about 50,000 years ago, with introgressive replacement of ABC arctos mitogenomes by maritimus mitogenomes. The mitochondrial lineages subsequently diverged, but ABC island brown bear mtDNA remains closer to polar bear than to mainland brown bears." (Why Should Mitochondria Define Species?, M.Y. Stoeckle and D.S. Thaler, p.3, Human Evolution, Vol. 33, 2018.)
Having tested more than 5 million DNA barcodes, which all showed that man and animals arrived on this planet at the same time (albeit dated by them to around 200,000 years ago using an assumed DNA error rate which has been shown to be totally inaccurate), Stoeckle and Thaler noticed that whilst there were only slight differences between animals of like kind, that there was a universe of difference between those which were not of like kind. They comment:
"The tight clustering of barcodes within species and unfilled sequence space among them are key facts of animal life that evolutionary theory must explain." (ibid. p.2)
In an interview, David Thaler admitted that "This conclusion is very surprising, and I fought against it as hard as I could". (https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html. ) The results go completely against the teachings of evolution, so he struggled with the realisation that "nine out of 10 species on Earth today, including humans, came into being 100,000 to 200,000 years ago". (Bear in mind, that in reality, they tested the DNA of 90% of animals, which is not the same thing as nine out of ten species. Every single one of the ones they did test showed that they all appeared at the same time. They are hopeful that the remaining 10% will produce a different result.) Having made such bold claims, being evolutionists, they now have to explain the dilemma they find themselves in, namely "why did the overwhelming majority of species in existence today emerge at about the same time? Environmental trauma is one possibility, explained Jesse Ausubel, director of the Program for the Human Environment at the Rockefeller University." (ibid.) Other suggestions involve most of man and animals being wiped out by "viruses, ice ages, successful new competitors, loss of prey". (ibid.)
The list goes on, though they go on to confess that "a population 'bottleneck' is only a partial explanation at best". In that interview, Thaler likens the gap between the various species to the universe. "If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies", he said. "They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty space. The absence of 'in-between' species is something that also perplexed Darwin", he added. Yet, they cannot let go of their evolutionist upbringing. Notice how they once again fall back on evidence which does not exist! The evidence which does actually exist goes against what they believe, so they turn to evidence which is non-existent to try and explain the 'anomaly'. Is not science based on observation and experimentation? If something is not observable, then it simply is not science!
By contrast, the HGT theory assumes that DNA from one creature can ATTACH itself to another creature. As I have said, there is no evidence for this. Yes, the rogue DNA can CAUSE changes, but the suggestion that they can actually attach themselves to the host DNA is stretching credibility. It is no good saying that they are convinced that HGTs actually occurred, as this is no recommendation seeing as how they are utterly convinced that we are descended from some ape-like ancestor. They will ALWAYS interpret things according to an evolutionary paradigm, so we need to be very wary of what these people propose. We need to weigh up what they are saying and decide whether they are presenting us with scientifically proven facts or their interpretations of the data. On this score, I refer you back to my explanation in a previous email where I demonstrate that evolutionist scientists are guilty of interpretation according to their Confirmation Bias.
Bear in mind that our immune system builds up antibodies to combat any foreign matter which gets into our bodies. Consider a flu virus entering our bodies. Proponents of the HGT theory argue that the DNA from these foreign bodies becomes part of us. Evolutionists are looking at DNA 'debris' left behind after a virus attack and they are interpreting according to their belief system. The evidence, however, shows that the cells in our body 'reformat' themselves to combat the intrusive elements. Bear in mind also that, in the case of DNA which is injected by a bite, HGTs are more likely to produce a more localised effect. By way of example, consider a rash or a blister or, in the case of a sting, a swelling around the entry point. These sorts of HGTs are not going to affect all of the cells in a host. Bear in mind also that scientists are able to trace the mitochondrial DNA back to its origins. They would not be able to do that if foreign DNA has been added. It will be interesting to see if DNA from the current coronavirus epidemic will attach itself to our bodies. There is no question that it will cause changes as our bodies try to repel the virus, but the HGT theory says that the DNA will actually attach itself to our DNA thereby changing our DNA make-up. If it doesn't, then the HGT theory will be dead!
As already stated above, the sorts of genetic changes we actually see occurring amongst populations are attributable to a combination of transposons and epigenetics, the latter being the ability of a cell to switch specific functions of the cell on or off. This is a proven scientific fact and has been well known for over a decade. I do not have the time to go through all the relevant material to provide you with the evidence to support all of this, especially as Pesach is fast approaching and there are other things I need to give priority to. Nevertheless, the following comments by Michael J. Behe might assist you in your understanding:
"Shapiro's view of the cell is elevated. The genome is not only a repository for information, he points out, but a read-write system, which can be manipulated by the cell itself. What's more, like our own computers, cells have formatting to direct their information-processing machinery to the right places. These include repetitive sequences of DNA that can give it special structures, organization of genes into regions that are accessible or inaccessible depending on need, and the epigenetic chemical markers of DNA discussed earlier. Genetic programs and information can be reused and repurposed, including those that control development of animal forms and those that determine the structure of protein regions called domains. All those abilities are used during the lives of cells, and all are controlled by them.
"The cell's uncanny deployment of genetic engineering tools leads Shapiro to view it as sentient , not that it is conscious in a human sense, but that it acts purposefully towards its environment. So perhaps the cell can also use its capacities purposefully to direct its own evolution." Darwin Devolves p.129, Harper Collins, New York 2019.
There has been a lot of work around genetic diversification both by evolutionist scientists and by creationist scientists alike. Dr Nathaniel Jeanson, for example, has demonstrated that all the human population can be traced back through the mitochondrial DNA to three women and back from there to one woman who has been dubbed Mitochondrial Eve. I actually met Dr Jeanson a couple of years ago as I was keen to get a little more information on his results as it impacts on my own historical research. He seemed a sincere and honest person and was very helpful. Note that whilst evolutionists work to an ASSUMED mtDNA error rate and date Mitochondrial Eve to around 600,000 years ago, Dr Jeanson has worked to real world results and has demonstrated that she lived between 5,000 to 10,000 years ago. (His calculations are based on min and max ages for a generation.) It is probably worth quoting what he says on the "Origin of New Species". He likens his results to putting together a jigsaw puzzle arguing that Darwin did not have the edge pieces, hence allowed his imagination to run wild. (Darwin saw that changes occurred within species and assumed that such changes could cross over into other species. It is a bit like saying, "because an athletic man can jump over hurdles he can also jump over the moon!")
"Since we began our quest to solve the puzzle of the origin of species, we've discovered many of the crucial pieces, the edge pieces and the corners. Specifically, species appear to have arisen recently, within the last few thousand years. Most of their traits seem to have been present in coded, genetically heterozygous form in their ancestors. In the descendants of these ancestors, shifts from heterozygosity to homozygosity would have been easy. These shifts would have revealed traits that were previously hidden. For example, the genes controlling zebra stripes likely come in dominant and recessive forms. As offspring arose with homozygous forms of one or the other, distinct traits would have appeared striped and unstriped individuals. Population subdivision via migration would have isolated those distinct traits and promoted the rise of new species, such as zebras and asses. These scientific pieces suggest a picture of species' origins that is slowly coming together." (Replacing Darwin p.247, Dr Nathaniel T. Jeanson, Master Books, Arkansas 2017.).
As stated by Jeanson, it is not just the environment that affects DNA changes. Donkeys, mules, zebras and horses are all the one 'kind' and are descended from the same original animal, but they cannot cross-breed with other different kinds. Lions, panthers, tigers and cats are likewise all the one kind. When we look at tics, 70% of their genetic make-up is unique. (They call these genes orphan genes, which is another topic in itself.) This is a big problem for evolutionist scientists because it means that tics could not possibly have evolved from any other animal.
Scientists are showing that every generation inherits around 100 DNA errors from their parents, so that you (Yair) have inherited 100 DNA errors from your father and your father has inherited 100 DNA errors from his father. These errors are accumulative. This is the opposite of what evolutionists want us to believe. Bear in mind that Abraham's wife Sara was around 90 years of age when Abimelech wanted to take her for a wife. (Abraham was 100 years old when Isaac was born [Gen. 21:5] and Sarah was 10 years younger than Abraham [Gen. 17:17].) How many 90 year old women today would you find attractive? Likewise, Sarah was 60 years of age when Pharaoh wanted her. She is described as being at that time "yafeh meod" - translated as 'very fair' (Gen. 12:14) but can be more correctly translated as 'very beautiful'. Again, how many 60 year old women can be described as being 'very beautiful'?
Genetics is a fast developing area of science. I can well understand why people get confused, especially when scientists put an evolution bent on the subject. It has taken me a few years to understand the various aspects of genetics, and even now, it is difficult to remember all the key words and parts of the genome, added to which, our understanding is increasing almost on a daily basis. You can rest assured in the knowledge, however, that the more geneticists discover, the more they are supporting the Biblical account of creation. Bear in mind that anyone who does not believe in Darwin's theory is automatically classed as a 'Creationist' irrespective of what group one belongs to, so welcome fellow creationist.
As I say, the creationist websites are full of useful information, but even they are not beyond making the odd mistake, so it always pays to check what they say. (They usually quote their sources, most of which can be found online.) You also have to train yourself to ignore the proselytising which some are guilty of, but thankfully, this is rare. (I think they try to make their work accessible to a wide audience.) If you have any specific queries, do not hesitate to drop me a line, but do not expect a speedy response this side of Pesach.
All the best.