by Steve Risner
Epigenetics is a topic I've been fascinated by since I first heard of it. Epigenetics is, as defined by Google, the study of changes in organisms caused by modification of gene expression rather than alteration of the genetic code itself. This is a study that, in my opinion, makes Darwinian evolution look foolish and completely unnecessary. If you've never heard of it or don't know much of it, I think you'll find this blog post interesting. That's my hope anyway.
Jean-Baptiste Lamarck said that genetic expression was governed by changes in genetic expression rather than genetic modification (mutations that were kept in the genetic code). This is an amazing and observed reality that is contrary to Darwinian evolution, that states that mutation is the driving force of change. Nothing could be further from the truth! What we have observed is that actual mutational changes are either degenerative (they result in a loss of information and function) or are neutral (they are overshadowed by the fact that a dominant gene compensates for it). There is rarely, if ever, a “beneficial” mutation. This means an error in the genetic code that actually adds information to the code of genetics, resulting in a novel or new function or trait in reality doesn't happen. These mutational changes that ADD information, are the backbone of universal common descent and have not been observed to date. Epigenetic changes (changes that result from turning a gene “on or off”) is much more likely the mechanism of change and we'll take a look at that further.
Darwin became a “Lamarchian” evolutionist before his death. This means he believed that environmental stressors could actually change the genetic code and be passed on to offspring. This is exceptionally different than mutational changes being transferred to offspring. Darwin used sailors (being far sighted as they looked upon the ocean for great distances) and watchmakers (who looked at very small objects very close to them) as a “for instance” example of genetic traits that were transferred to offspring due to environmental factors. Again, Darwin admitted faith in Lamarchian ideas prior to his death.
For some time, scientists resisted the idea that environment could influence genetic expression (since it screamed of a Creator and made Darwinism look foolish), but now they're embracing it because they have no choice.
I'll not get into the details of how epigenetic works, but certain genes, due to what is going on in the life and environment of the parent, can be turned “on” or “off” and passed on to the offspring. This has been documented repeatedly. The Italian Wall Lizard is a wonderful example. This lizard was dropped off on an island that did not have its natural food source. As a result, it developed a novel way of digesting vegetation that very close relatives of the lizard already possessed. The organism did this in a very short time period and passed it on to its offspring. This is epigenetics to the core and anti-Darwinian.
We've actually seen changes in populations that are passed on to the “grandkids” of the subject, that are quickly changed back to the “normal” expression quickly if environmental changes are removed. This screams of what creationists have termed “front loaded” gene expression, and it’s another example of creationists having it right for years before the atheist/secular scientists catch up. It happens all the time.
Epigenetics deals with what we'll term “non-permanent” changes to genetic expression. In other words, the genetic code already has the possibility for a wide variety of expression and it just requires a stress to signal a change is needed to adapt to the new environment. These changes are easily and quickly reversible. This is absolutely devastating to Darwinian evolution. It essentially means it is not necessary at all by any means. Ever heard of Darwin's finches? This is a perfect example of epigenetics and has nothing to do with Darwin's ideas of natural selection or mutation. In other words, Darwin got it wrong big time.
Creation.com says, “...considering that epigenetic changes seem to be designed to have a significant effect, they seem to be more powerful than most mutations, which generally have little to no effect on the individual. ‘Natural selection’ needs to be able to ‘see’ mutations, but most mutations are so weak as to be invisible. Epigenetics adds a lot of noise, making it even harder for natural selection to operate. How can evolution proceed if natural selection cannot remove mutations? That is one puzzle that epigenetics creates.”
External changes lead to long-term inherited affects. Conditions the mother or possibly the father were going through at the time of conception can be passed on to children and grandchildren. This is amazing and absolutely in the face of Darwinian evolution. No mutations are necessary. In fact, it further shows us that these real changes in gene expression are far more impacting and substantial than any mutational changes could ever hope to be. Mutations are generally damaging, and there are mechanisms in place to eliminate them within the genetic replication process. Epigenetic changes are real and long-lasting. Again, the creationist relies on observed facts rather than extreme extrapolation that the evolutionist heavily relies on.
Dr. Bas Heijmans says, “Epigenetics could be a mechanism which allows an individual to adapt rapidly to changed circumstances,” and this nullifies mutations that would may lead to changes. In fact, we're hard pressed to find evidence that these changes (mutational) occur and are beneficial for the continued existence of a species.
Epigenetic changes are real, very quick, preloaded so they are actually already present in the genetic code, and long-lasting. According to Creation.com, studies on bison bones found in permafrost in a Canadian gold mine indicated that epigenetic changes in the bison population enabled them to adapt rapidly to changes in climate. These are changes far too rapid for traditional Darwinian models of natural selection to explain. The article says, “The bones play a key role in a world-first study, led by University of Adelaide researchers, which analyses special genetic modifications that turn genes on and off, without altering the DNA sequence itself. These ‘epigenetic’ changes can occur rapidly between generations—without requiring the time for standard evolutionary processes.” In other words, Darwinian evolution is absolutely bunk here and unnecessary. Epigenetics are not changes in the genetic code but changes in how the genes are expressed. This makes Darwinian evolution absolutely a thing of fiction and again totally unnecessary. In other words, it's nonsense. It stands in the face of random mutations that create benefits for organisms and, therefore, biodiversity. There is no scientific proof for such things. Again, the science confirms creationist ideas and makes atheist/humanist ideas look like a thing of children’s stories. That's too bad.
Be encouraged. Science confirms the Bible and the creation account. That's just the way it is. I’m looking forward to your comments to this thought provoking and anti-secularist blog post! Thanks for reading.
This forum is meant to foster discussion and allow for differing viewpoints to be explored with equal and respectful consideration. All comments are moderated and any foul language or threatening/abusive comments will not be approved. Users who engage in threatening or abusive comments which are physically harmful in nature will be reported to the authorities.
17 comments:
2017 has been a bad year for evolutionists. I have noticed a trend in modern writers on the topic. All the smart guys for a while were atheists trying to prove evolution, but that has dramatically changed in the last fifteen years. The new guys are all talking about design because it is so apparent. The religion of evolutionary naturalism is digging in its heels however and demanding its articles of faith to be observed without critical thought.
Evolution's cloak of superiority is increasingly threadbare, showing the shameful nakedness of its foundational tenets.
Excellent article.
"These mutational changes that ADD information, are the backbone of universal common descent and have not been observed to date."
Apart from real processes such as gene duplication.
Whatever Darwin may have thought (150 years ago) epigenetics is part of evolution and does not particularly 'scream' design or anything else.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contribution_of_epigenetic_modifications_to_evolution
"This is absolutely devastating to Darwinian evolution." How? "Epigenetics adds a lot of noise, making it even harder for natural selection to operate" (CMI). Only a creationist would make such a claim. Robert Carter provided NO supporting scientific reference for his claim. Maybe a reversed environmentally triggered genetic modification/change in gene expression might slow down evolution - IF the person in question produced offspring and did so before the later reversal took place. (If the Carter claim were true it would also falsify the already false the post-flood very rapid speciation that other young earth creationists claim occurred.) "No mutations are necessary." However mutations are real, observed and mostly entirely natural. You don't require so called “front loaded” gene expression.
I don't really need to adopt the propagandist tone of David Odegard either. Or indeed the claim "Again, the creationist relies on observed facts rather than extreme extrapolation that the evolutionist heavily relies on". "This makes Darwinian evolution absolutely a thing of fiction and again totally unnecessary. In other words, it's nonsense." No.
David, you are correct! The idea of universal common descent is nothing more than a religion. It has been disguised as some sort of scientific field for far too long and it seems some are beginning to realize this. However, since the alternative is unacceptable to the secularist and since they hold the coin purse, I feel common ancestry is here to stay for some time.
Ashley,
Good day, sir. I apologize for my apparent lack of participation with this blog post. If you've followed the Worldview Warriors at all recently, you'll know my wife and I went on a campaign to fill a semi truck with supplies to provide relief to Houston, Texas after they were devastated by a hurricane. As a result, we've been rather distracted. So let's get to your comments:
You believe gene duplication is an addition of information addition of information. Does my repeating of the last 3 words of that sentence add information or create a new idea? No. In fact, it garbles the communication and creates a situation where the intent of the message may be compromised. This is, in my opinion, a decrease in information because it makes the sentence burdensome and could potentially make it nonsensical. For instance: You believe gene duplication is an gene duplication is an addition of information. Rather than increasing the information (and I certainly see why you would suggest it does) it actually damages the sequence of words, creating havoc rather than a new idea. Sorry, but gene duplication doesn't help you even slightly.
You said, "... epigenetics is part of evolution..." This is wishful thinking AND further demonstrates that Darwinism is NOT science but is a belief. You have proven the accommodating power of Darwinism. If a "theory" (loosely used) can account for anything, it really can't explain anything. Evolution predicts changes in organisms over time...except when there are none. Then it predicts stasis. It predicts certain traits will remain and be dominant in a population...except when those traits do not remain in the population. Then it predicts they'll be eliminated. It actually doesn't predict anything at all of substance.
" "No mutations are necessary." However mutations are real, observed and mostly entirely natural. You don't require so called “front loaded” gene expression."-- mutations are destructive or, if you're lucky, they may provide a benefit if they accidentally turn off a gene (which is more consistent with epigenetics than mutations) like with the E. coli experiment. Mutations are real and don't do what you need them to. In fact, creationists stick with observed scientific data rather than the fanciful, wishful thinking that humanists NEED to be real but have no evidence for. Face it, epigenetics accounts for changes in populations and mutations do not. If mutations do account for a change, it's generally a loss of information. Epigentics accounts for rapid changes in genetic expression that are passed on to offspring for multiple generations that are easily and quickly reversed when the stressor is gone. This is not "evolution" as you say but is great evidence that supports the creationists' belief in a Designer and the mechanism by which we believe diversification was achieved in the world. If you cannot admit that this is at least a viable option for the evidence, you are not honest in this discussion on any level and you require ignoring the facts to hold to your religion.
I'll have to get to the rest later. Thanks, again, for the dialogue.
Ashley said, " Maybe a reversed environmentally triggered genetic modification/change in gene expression might slow down evolution - IF the person in question produced offspring and did so before the later reversal took place."--speaking of making unsupported claims. Research shows without doubt that epigenetic changes are passed down to offspring and, in some cases, it's been noted to the 4th or 5th generation. If the stressor that caused the gene expression change to occur remains, it will continue to be passed on.
"If the Carter claim were true it would also falsify the already false the post-flood very rapid speciation that other young earth creationists claim occurred."--Your bias is showing fairly starkly. Keep it up. Maybe one day you'll realize that your unwillingness to even view creationist info with an honest and open mind is hindering you from true discovery and the acquisition of knowledge. But your statement here is irrational and simply false. Epigenetics provides an observational means by which speciation may have occurred after the Flood. You believe speciation has occurred and likely through similar means that creationists do. The only difference being the amount of time that it took place and the means by which the changes could have occurred in the first place (i.e. random, unguided, blind luck mutations that added information for novel changes vs the observed changes in gene expression that creationists look at plus a tiny amount of degenerative change that probably occurred).
"I don't really need to adopt the propagandist tone of David Odegard either. "--And yet you do every time you make a comment! This statement is one of the most hypocritical you've made. You are skewed, spun, and biased in every statement you make, Ashley. Remove the plank from your own eye before you try to remove the speck from David's.
You further state: "Again, the creationist relies on observed facts rather than extreme extrapolation that the evolutionist heavily relies on". "This makes Darwinian evolution absolutely a thing of fiction and again totally unnecessary. In other words, it's nonsense." --and your response to this statement is deep and insightful. "No."--Facts really do tend to make Darwinists look foolish. You believe in fairy tales and rely heavily on wishful thinking while creationists (who invented science, by the way, and built the foundation of every branch of it) rely on the Bible and the facts. The facts are in favor of our interpretation of reality. The facts stand in the face of universal common descent, which is an absurd idea for the dull (or the person who refuses to accept the obvious and will deny God at every opportunity). There is no support for universal common descent and I mean none. There is evidence that organisms can change over time. This is not evidence for universal common descent but is merely the way creation was made to function and the facts support it. I look forward to hearing your response.
I received an email re your new comments.
I note why you were absent recently.
I suggest you're talking nonsense about gene duplication. Likewise simply waffling about epigenetics. And I see you are disputing the role of (a few) mutations in evolution and questioning ongoing conclusions of the Lenski E. coli experiment.
"Maybe one day you'll realize that your unwillingness to even view creationist info with an honest and open mind is hindering you from true discovery and the acquisition of knowledge." Never. My mind was open when I found YE creationist 'info' wanting.
And David Odegard's opening comment was sheer propaganda.
And your claim that (Christian) creationists "built the foundation of every branch of" science (worldwide) is plain wrong as it implies they did all of this (whatever is meant by 'foundation') all this on their own ie NOBODY else anywhere else away from Europe did any of this and never did any worthwhile science in past centuries.
Ashley,
Please elaborate on your comment concerning my "nonsense about gene duplication."
The conclusions of the Lenskie experiment are simple: the bacteria were forced into an environment and as a result lost the ability to regulate a normal function they already had. It served them better in that particular man made environment, but it was a loss of function, not a gain.
Biblical creationists have had a long history in science--much longer than humanists or atheists. You'll need to read my blog post titled "Creation Scientist is not an Oxymoron" to get a glimpse of an understanding on the subject of where modern science came from and who is responsible for the various branches of it we commonly explore today. You can search for that blog post in the blog section of our website. Your statements, sir, are just made in total ignorance on the subject.
This particular comment by you, which I do appreciate by the way, is a little lacking in content.
PS--nearly all of your comments are propaganda, so I'm not sure why you're complaining.
"Please elaborate on your comment concerning my "nonsense about gene duplication."" You provided an inappropriate analogy instead of discussing genetics.
"Your statements, sir, are just made in total ignorance on the subject." No they are not. Your comment ignored science developed in the past by eg the Islamic world and Chinese civilisations. (And atheistic stalinist North Korea has recently developed nuclear weapons technology without help from Christian 'creation scientists'.)
Ashley
good day. Hope you're well.
You said, "You provided an inappropriate analogy instead of discussing genetics."--Actually, I provided a perfectly appropriate analogy to demonstrate the buffoonery that evolutionists will go to in order to salvage the nonsense of their beliefs.
You went on to say, ""Your statements, sir, are just made in total ignorance on the subject." No they are not. Your comment ignored science developed in the past by eg the Islamic world and Chinese civilisations. (And atheistic stalinist North Korea has recently developed nuclear weapons technology without help from Christian 'creation scientists'.)"--this is, I am guessing, concerning the fact that Christians in Europe developed the modern notion of science and founded nearly every major branch of science that we use today. I'm waiting for you to actually address that. Your comments on the subject thus far have nothing to do with my statements. Please don't respond further on this particular subject until you have read my blog post on the topic with the title "Creation Scientist is Not an Oxymoron." Thanks
I note that you are avoiding the substance of my comments but I read the previous blog post:
http://worldviewwarriors.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/creation-scientist-is-not-oxymoron.html
Science has moved on over the centuries. In the past (certainly before 1859) creationists were creationists because they were religious and the beginning and development of life in the universe was a mystery that only religion had an answer to. Today creationists are anti-evolutionists in denial of huge swathes of what they label 'historical science'.
This conversation appears not to be going anywhere. Which might be what you want.
Ashley said "I note that you are avoiding the substance of my comments"--you didn't have any substance to your comments. It's hard to address things you say when they are either irrelevant/not based on the content of the blog post.
"Science has moved on over the centuries."--every day, actually. We call it progress and it's a good thing. But this had literally nothing to do with my statements concerning the origins of science and the scientific method. Where it has led has nothing to do with where it started. It started, primarily, with Europeans who, out of their wonder and awe at the majesty of God and His creation, studied it and developed nearly every major branch of science we now have today. You have yet to address that statement.
"In the past (certainly before 1859) creationists were creationists because they were religious and the beginning and development of life in the universe was a mystery that only religion had an answer to."--actually, there is literally no way for "science" to tell you about the origin of the universe or of life. It's hysterical you think it can. What a complete misunderstanding. Intelligent folks (like the large majority of the highest known IQ's on earth right now) know there is no way to explain the existence of the universe or life apart from the God of the Bible. Unfortunately, some believe they are too intelligent to find this truth. Newton, arguably the greatest and certainly at least one of the greatest minds of science, was not a creationist because he was "religious." It makes sense and science suggests it makes sense as well as it can. But the fact remains that "science" doesn't answer the questions your talking about. How could it?
"Today creationists are anti-evolutionists in denial of huge swathes of what they label 'historical science'. "--not at all. You completely misrepresent or fail to understand that which you oppose. I can't see a third option. Creationists are anti-evolution, yes. Evolution is naive. By this I mean that evolution from a single common ancestor over eons of time has NO scientific evidence and is nothing more than a religion. It is a faith based idea and nothing more. If two scientists, equally qualified, can view the facts and come up with completely different stories (neither of which is verifiable because we're talking about one time past events that no one was around to witness), you cannot expect me to think the evidence is stacked in your favor. Consensus does not mean it's correct. Consensus science is junk science all day long.
I would love for you to participate in this conversation, but you keep babbling about unrelated things or spewing propaganda like it's your job. You've stated for us all to observe how biased and unthinking you are in this subject. Your prejudice is noted as is your gerrymandering about the topics. I don't have time to communicate and type out a conversation so the conversation goes nowhere. I would like very much to have a good talk with you, but you seem to want to speak vaguely or off topic. Reel it in, please.
Care to comment on the blog post you claim to have read?
Secular scientists have also recognized the difference between operational and historical science.
For information (your choice whether you display the thread including the two posts dated 21 October):
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3829&p=51695#p51695
I'm not really sure what I'm supposed to gather from your link, Ashley. It's nice you're chatting about me and gossiping about me on the internet. That's super.
I note that you make grand claims when your opponent in debate is not present. Aside from that, I have no idea how to even navigate through the sludge on the other end of that link. It's cumbersome and hard to follow--choppy and references lots of other things that were allegedly said or done that I just don't have time to chase down.
I do think you mentioned the "Christians invented science" topic and, again, because you don't understand the topic or the point, you keep rambling about the Chinese and Muslims and their contributions to science. Lots of people from around the world have contributed to our knowledge base. But the scientific method was invented by a Christian in Europe and, for the 40th time, nearly every if not every major branch of science was founded by a Christian creationist. If you won't comment on that directly, don't comment on it. If you have evidence that suggests several major branches of science were, in fact, founded by someone other than creationists, I'll be happy to view it. If you have evidence that science and the way it is conducted in the modern world was not worked out by Christians, please show it. Otherwise, you've exposed yourself as unable to even participate in the conversation. You keep spewing out nonsense that has no connection to the topic at hand. In fact, you know what? Go to the "Creation Scientist Is Not An Oxymoron" post and comment there directly on what it says that is incorrect or that you have a different take on, please. It'll be easier to reference.
Anonymous
Can you go into details on the difference? That would be great.
Last few paras of this post (for information):
http://www.forums.bcseweb.org.uk/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=3153&p=51759&hilit=apt#p51759
Post a Comment