You are searching about A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes, today we will share with you article about A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes was compiled and edited by our team from many sources on the internet. Hope this article on the topic A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes is useful to you.
The Epilogue of Evolution – BIG MISTAKE!
Over a century ago, Charles Darwin had a simple idea that hoodwinked the world. Amongst the offspring of any organism, he pointed out, there will be tiny variations in body structure that make some of them a bit stronger, faster or sexually attractive than the rest and therefore ‘fitter’– i.e. better equipped to cope with the pressures of their environment and the struggle for survival. He called the imagined evolutionary process ‘descent with modification’ and the collective pressures of life were called ‘natural selection’.
Thus, he suggested, given enough time, which was conveniently supplied by the developing science of geology, a primitive organism (possibly created by God, as he was initially willing to admit) in that famous primeval pool of slime, could have gradually evolved and diversified, generation by generation, to create all life on earth as we know it. The theory of evolution proved seductive, so much so that even today it is embraced as gospel truth by many Nobel scientists who should know better. A quite incredible situation!
Essays and Reviews
Darwin’s simple idea provided evolution with the crucial missing mechanism, i.e. natural selection, that had eluded its atheistic supporters since the days of the ancient Greeks.
And so evolution was given a spark of life and Darwinism was born, and in the year 1859 The Origin of Species was finally published – and the world applauded. Then, one year later, in a sad parody of the wise men coming to the birth of Jesus, a group of very un-wise British clergymen turned up and were emboldened to publish a book of their own, entitled Essays and Reviews, claiming the Bible to be a mixture of error, myth and superstition. Evolution was helped on its way, to do its nefarious work of hoodwinking the world. Their sorry book, I am told, which actually outsold Darwin’s at the time, is still held in high esteem in Anglican seminaries.
Darwin’s theory stressed that any small difference that gave an organism some tiny ‘advantage’ would cause it to be favoured and selected for survival. The principle of natural selection soon became a magic mantra, still being spouted by nano-brain TV presenters who glibly assure us that if the acquisition a new feature, such as legs for a fish, would give them an ‘advantage’, then natural selection would have ensured that feature ‘evolved’, ‘developed’ or was ‘acquired’. No questions asked. No need for messy details of How? and Why? No need for chains of logical cause-and-effect explanation.
The true believer just knows it works that way, even though Darwin himself admitted that it was virtually impossible, given the complexities of nature, to define what the fittest meant in any situation. For example, for a given group of organisms, which is the fittest? Is it the fastest, the strongest, the biggest – or could it be the little chap who ignores the territorial battles and quietly casts his seed as widely as possible?
You Just Gotta Believe It
One such true believer, is EvoDevo enthusiast Professor Sean Carroll. In discussing how the ‘icefish’ must have evolved to survive in in the ocean in freezing temperatures, and without the red blood cells and the haemoglobin that normally acts as an antifreeze, Carroll lists the following evolutionary design changes from normal fish: larger gills, scaleless skin with unusually large capillaries, large heart and bigger blood volumes. In fact, he says, the fish also has ‘many cardiovascular adaptations’ that somehow get the vital oxygen to its muscles. Survival has even required that the micro-structure of the ‘tubules’ in its cells be modified for freezing conditions.
He adds that a number of other coordinated ‘inventions’ were also needed – such as special ‘antifreeze proteins’ in its blood plasma, without which the fish would turn into a block of ice. He then glibly describes in terms of amino acids how ‘many more genes’ must have been modified to make these adaptations possible. And all this was due, he claims, to the accumulation of randomly generated DNA copying errors. And this is serious science at work? Gadzooks!
Ve Have Vays…
The prolific British evolutionist Professor Steve Jones adopts a somewhat more folksy approach when he explains that the jaw bones of a certain organism were ‘hijacked’ and turned into the bones of the middle ear to impart hearing. It was a useful attribute, so Abracadabra! It happened because it would have been ‘an advantage’. No further explanation required.
Unspoken of course, is the fact that to break ranks and start asking nasty questions can cost one’s career. Just as the educational director of the British Royal Society discovered when he simply suggested that schools should discuss Genesis with pupils. Were it not so tragic, it would be funny. ‘Vee have vays of shutting you up. Do you understand? Now repeat zis after me – Darvin vos right! Darvin vos right!’
An Alternative Scenario
Darwin’s simplistic theory was seductive to many people, the more so as fossils of strange now-extinct creatures began to be found in the vast canal and railway earthworks undertaken in Britain’s industrial revolution. Yes, it all made sense – all those oddball organisms must have proved unfit to survive, whilst the fittest, being more upwardly mobile and ambitious, had moved on. Soon, Darwin was able to draw a mythical ‘tree of life’, purporting to show how all life on earth had evolved and branched out from one or a few original simple organisms or ‘common ancestors’.
In a simple alternative gap-theory scenario, as discussed in Literal Genesis and EvoGenesis, those bizarre and now-extinct creatures actually belonged to an alien prehistoric world that was destroyed in violent manner as still witnessed by the state of the moon and every planet NASA explores, leaving the earth in the empty, ravaged state described in the first verses of Genesis.
Those creatures were destroyed and so did not evolve to become the ancestors of those we know today. The most probable cause of that devastation being the recently discovered K-T event which saw the earth massively bombarded by gigantic meteorites (probably chunks of disintegrated planets) and racked with earthquakes, volcanic eruption, tsunamis, etc. This simple but key fact renders Darwinism superfluous and irrelevant, but at the same time clarifies the meaning of the first couple of verses of Genesis.
Of course back in 1859, when Darwin finally worked up the courage to publish his theory, after vacillating for twenty years, nobody knew enough about nature to prove him either right or wrong. For his supporters, that ignorance was bliss.
Cells had been discovered in 1665 thanks to the work of Robert Hooke examining a sliver of cork under the newly-invented microscope. But it was not until 1860, one year after Darwin’s book, that Virchow was able to assert that ‘All cells arise from cells’, thereby confirming that all organisms are composed of tiny cells. It then took another twenty-eight years before Waldeyer, observing some reproducing cells under a microscope, noticed some thin strands made visible by a coloured stain, and named ‘chromosomes’.
Later again, in 1904, Boveri succeeded in counting the number of chromosomes in cells taken from tomatoes, wheat and cats – discovering that the removal of a chromosome caused offspring to be deformed. Mechanistic biology was under way.
Bring on the electron microscope, the mass spectrometer and x-ray crystallography! So science rushed ahead, and by 1953, building on the work of several other pioneers, Watson and Crick reached their groundbreaking conclusion that the DNA molecules found in chromosomes exists in the form of a three-dimensional double helix composed of the four key bases C, A, T and G.
The Human Genome Project
Thus it was when Crick wandered into the Eagle pub in Cambridge and announced: ‘We have discovered the secret of “life”!’, his claim was trumpeted to the world by a compliant and euphoric mass media, led by the BBC. In total ignorance of a spiritual dimension of nature, his colleague James Watson later commented, that: ‘In the last analysis, there are only atoms!’ Oh those deluded reductionists. The mythical pot of gold, it seemed, was almost in their hands. All that remained to finish the job was to carry out a massive project to map out all the gene sequences in a full human genome. Thus the Human Genome project (HGP) started in1990 and was completed in 2003.
Under the Carpet
Thus, to summarize, it was discovered over the decades that all organisms are indeed composed of cells, which in turn contain chromosomes, then genes, then DNA and the chemical bases C, A, T and G. Amazingly, the same or similar bits of DNA were then found in all organisms. So all must be related, it seemed! All must have evolved from a ‘common ancestor’! Or could it have been a common designer?
Ironically, this is where, without realizing it, the over-confident evolutionists and their atheistic buddies went badly wrong, opening a kind of Pandora’s box of complexity. Instead of sticking with Darwin’s tried and test line of simple deception, the one about tiny differences in offspring, they began to try to ‘explain’ in detail how the mythical process really worked. Also, as they became convinced that the battle against the Bible had finally been won, they began to write books, openly admitting problems that had previously been swept under the proverbial carpet, scandals the peasants were not supposed to know about. They carelessly began to let Darwin’s cat squeeze out of the proverbial bag – something not to be unexpected since the bag, like his theory, was rotten and full of holes, as he himself once admitted.
Cambridge, We Have a Problem!
Nevertheless the massive project was completed, and even today I can read on the genome.gov website the claim that: ‘The HGP gave us the ability, for the first time, to read nature’s complete genetic blueprint for building a human being’… Sorry, chaps, but that is simply not true, as top Harvard evolutionists, Richard Lewtontin, pints out. So please stop misleading the general public.
Even though it was an astonishing piece of scientific research, Lewontin points out that there is not even enough ‘positional information’ in DNA sequences to specify the shape of even a single folded protein molecule, let alone a whole organism (see The Triple Helix). As he also admits elsewhere (It Ain’t Necessarily So!), there is not even enough information to specify the shape of somebody’s nose, or any other part of any organism. So, he concludes, we still don’t know what it means to be ‘human’. The blueprints are just not there.
So, despite the euphoria, science simply does not know what ‘life’ is, or how the ‘life’ in my dog differs from the ‘life’ in one of this body cells. Neither, of course, can these reductionist zealots understand or explain mind, consciousness, emotion, instinct or creativity.
You Need Faith, Brother
One evolutionist whose faith in Darwinism was badly shaken by these events is British biologists Derek Hough. In his book Evolution – A Case of Stating the Obvious, he describes how he lost his evangelical faith in Darwinism on a two-minute tube train ride to work one morning. He suddenly saw how totally incapable the infantile theory was of explaining the origins of the complexity-within-complexity being revealed. Sadly, however, like many who have nibbled the magic mushroom of evolution, he remains a believer, but is hard at work searching for a more credible evolutionary mechanism. The reason being he cannot accept the alternatives – i.e. magic or God.
However, as Lewontin explains, molecular biology has become a ‘faith’ of its own, and the scientists are its high priests – some of whom have even lied to protect that faith.
The Vitalists and the Reductionists
In earlier times the ‘vitalists’ were content to attribute the design, growth and development of organisms to the hand of God, or at least some invisible ‘field’, but the new reductionists or mechanists evidently wanted to make it sound more ‘scientific’, with more jargon to bamboozle the scientifically illiterate peasants in the pews, just like the those theologians in the Middle Ages. They wanted to prove Darwin was right.
Big mistake, as Julia Roberts said to the embarrassed dress shop assistant. Big mistake! Huge! But they pressed on regardless.
Combining Darwinism with the new science of genetics, they finally arrived at the flashy new ‘Neo-Darwinism – the modern synthesis’, which sought to explain how random DNA copying errors really could work miracles against the odds and all logic. Apparently the early versions were so mathematically abstruse that many bog standard scientists simply could not understand them. The key point was that those mutating genes were supposed to be in charge of the morphology and evolution of all organisms.
In other words when the cells divided in order to replicate the genes, random mistakes were made so that novel new bits and pieces of bodywork were evolved. Thus, given enough time, the fortuitous accumulation of those mutations, under the watchful eye of Natural Selection, could supposedly explain the evolution of all life on earth. And didn’t it sound ‘scientific’? And all that jargon. Got to be good. Wow! Time to start burning those Bibles. I wonder what their calorific value is?
Slaves and Masters
However, the amazing technology revealed that the genes in a cell are arranged in echelons of ‘authority’ four or more layers deep, with ranks of ‘slave’ genes being controlled by ‘master’ genes above them. The sheer complexity was astonishing, and all supposedly created by the fortuitous accumulation of random DNA copying errors.
But along with the complexity came some weird paradoxes. Why, for example, does most DNA appear to have no function – which is why it was initially dismissed as ‘junk DNA’? The matter is still under investigation. But consider also the fact that an onion has more DNA in its cells than you do, with rice possessing 38,000 genes against our 25,000. Or that an amoeba boasts a genome 200 times as large as that of the late Albert Einstein.
On the other hand, there is only about one per cent difference between the genome of man and a chimpanzee, causing the leader of the Chimpanzee Genome Project to comment: ‘We cannot see why we are so different’. Perhaps it’s ‘all in the bananas’ chum.
Clearly, something was wrong – and the simplistic claim that ‘It is all in the genes’, and that they provide the blueprints of any part of any organism was no longer tenable – since there seems to be very little relation between the complexity of organisms and their genomes. Something more mysterious was plainly going on. Cue ‘epi-genetics’.
Since, as science has realized, it is no longer “all in the genes’, then clearly other forces are at work, for which the term ‘epi-genetics’ has been coined, the prefix ‘epi’ meaning ‘above’ or ‘higher’, or ‘in control’. Although a queen bee, for example, shares the same genome as many of her fellow bees, she lives some twenty times as long and also differs in a number of other important ways, such as being able to lay eggs – all due, it seems, to having been fed on ‘royal jelly’ for several days longer than them at birth. Likewise, a caterpillar and a butterfly share the same genes.
Diet clearly affects morphogenesis, which is one reason why identical human twins will not remain identical throughout their lives. Although this is a new field of study, it has already been discovered that various chemical units attach themselves temporarily to the genes and somehow affect the related morphogenesis. One such is the methyl unit, CH3-, in a process called ‘methylation’. It’s as if the genes get dirty and muck things up.
In his book The Making of the Fittest, Sean Carroll enthuses over the similarities in the DNA of all organisms, and the new techniques of ‘Evolutionary Developmental biology’, or ‘EvoDevo’, that enable us to read the genetic codes of organisms with the aim of establishing evolutionary relationships between them. Somewhat carried away by early apparent success, he promised to ‘vaporize’ the arguments of creationists. Ah well.
Kindly Men in White Coats
He enthuses in particular about the discovery in the 1980s of ‘homeobox’ or ‘toolbox’ genes, virtually identical sections of which have been found in man and mouse, reptiles and fruit flies.
Indeed, homeobox genes do in some way affect morphology, as demonstrated by kindly gentlemen in white coats who have found that interfering with a fruit fly’s DNA can cause its offspring to have develop extra eyes and pairs of legs and wings in the wrong places. What jolly fun!
Carroll’s enthusiasm was somewhat premature, as we note yet again that the Human Genome Project has shown that detailed blueprints for the morphogenesis of any organism are not to be found in their genes.
Indeed, it is becoming clear that the main function of genes is to create protein building materials, on demand, when and where needed. No wonder that even Richard Dawkins has to admit that is wrong to speak of there being genes ‘for’ any structure, although scientists find it convenient to do so because, as mechanists, they still have to insist that morphology must somehow be controlled by atoms and molecules, rather then non-material ‘fields’ – or even the hand of God. Of course God is verboten, despite the fact He is aware of every sparrow that falls and even has the hairs on our heads numbered.
The Brick Factory
What astonishing genius it is that God has empowered the stem cells in a growing embryo to produce whatever kind of specialized tissue is required at that particular moment in any cell’s location in the body. It’s as if you could have a supply of magical multipurpose “bricks” that on command from the builder could change shape, turn into concrete blocks, sheets of plaster board, floor boards, roof tiles or windows – then work with other “bricks” to assemble a house – then fit it with plumbing and electrical wiring.
Tuning the Radio
Indeed, Rupert Sheldrake insists that morphogenesis ‘continues to evade a molecular explanation’. To illustrate his point, he compare organisms to radios that play music from signals carried to them by a field of electro-magnetic waves. Although the physical components of the radio physically make the sound waves, they do not compose the music or arrange the notes, A, B, C, etc. And interfering with them may change the tone and volume and distort the music, or even cause different radio stations to be tuned into.
The Morphic Field
Almost a lone voice, or at least one brave enough to speak up, Sheldrake, has revived the ancient theory of ‘morphic fields’, which he compares to the field around a magnet that draws iron filings into interesting patterns. Thus the morphology of any detail of anatomy is not controlled by genes, but by a non-physical morphic field. As an embryo grows, for example, the multiplying cells are positioned and arranged, like iron filings, by the body’s morphic field.
At this point Sheldrake, who is a professing Christian anyway, seems to come near to the Biblical truth that there is a ‘spirit’ in man that imparts intellect or consciousness (Job 32:8) – and no doubt emotion, imagination, creativity and instinct. And also morphology?
Painful Problem 1: Growth of embryos
You don’t need a Ph.D. in biology to ask questions that mechanists cannot answer. How, for example, does a cell in a growing embryo ‘know’ how and also ‘when’ to work with others to form a hand or a foot, be that a right or left version – and then work with more zillions of cells to thread it through with blood vessels, both arteries and veins, connected to the heart – and also nerves leading to the brain? Who or what is ‘in charge’? Can the cells somehow communicate, like birds in a flock or bees in a swarm, or ants in a colony? Sheldrake’s answer is the morphic field. Mechanists try to explain the magic in terms of variations in the concentrations of chemicals.
As Sheldrake admits, the big mistake has been to try to explain everything in specific mechanical detail. The mechanists have tried hard, but they cannot do it. Ah well, what do they say about a potsof gold at the end of the rainbow? Or was that a Nobel Prize I caught a glimpse of? Never mind chaps, it was fun while it lasted.
Painful Problem 2: The evolution of sex
When Jesus comments that God made man and woman, male and female, he is pinpointing a fatal flaw in evolution, and killing Darwinism stone dead. No doubt God foresaw the madness that would emerge from the mind of the demented Darwin. How could highly complex yet perfectly complementary male and female sex organ systems in all their details possibly have evolved in independent organisms, be that man and woman or any other creatures, by the accumulation of randomly generated DNA copying errors? It is totally impossible, causing no less an evolutionary authority than Richard Dawkins to sheepishly admits, in The Selfish Gene, that the existence of sex is ‘an extremely difficult question for the evolutionist to answer’ and adds: ‘I am frankly going to evade it.’ Never mind, Prof, we got the message!
Painful Problem 3: Beyond Intelligent Design
In his work as a biologist, Charles Darwin was greatly disturbed by the violence and pure evil he saw at work in nature. However, he seems to have overlooked that fact that the earth’s ecology, as created in the six days of Genesis was actually a benign to begin with. Animals did not originally kill and be killed, a peaceful utopian state that the prophets tell us will be restored at Jesus’ return (Isaiah 65:25 & 11:6), when the lion will eat straw like the ox.
He overlooked, also, the fact that the world is metaphorical – so that, for example, each day, and the seasons of each year act as metaphors for the human experience of growing up and growing old, with sleeping and waking helping us understand about death and the resurrection.
Also that in our present evil world (Galatians 1:4) each organism has been designed by God to demonstrates positive or negative aspects of the way of life Adam and Eve opted for – e.g. the loan shark, the greedy pig, the gormless meerkat, etc. on the one hand, and the industrious ant and the mothering hen on the other. After the fall, no doubt animals also began to demonstrate this thing called ‘death’ that God had warned Adam and Eve about.
This is why Jesus was able to draw endless spiritual lessons from nature – from the seed of the Word of God to being begotten and then born again, to the generation of spiritual ‘vipers’ depicting the Pharisees with their poisonous beliefs. These metaphors cannot be the doings of evolution and go way beyond Intelligent Design as normally understood.
Painful Problem 4: Those pesky intermediate fossils
Darwin’s theory of evolution required that the overwhelming bulk of fossils be those of failed, unfit ‘intermediate’ organisms or ‘transitional forms’. In his own words: ‘every geological formation and every stratum’ should be ‘full of such intermediate links’, that ‘infinitely numerous organisms’ and ‘innumerable transitional forms must have existed’. This was to be the key test of this theory.
However, he was soon forced to concede that: ‘Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chains; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection to my theory.’ A fatal objection, in fact. One that will still not go away.
Even now, over a hundred years later, those transitional forms have still not been found, leading Eldredge and Gould to comment that ‘the degree of gradualism‘ demanded by Charles Darwin’s theory is ‘virtually nonexistent in the fossil record‘. Nonexistent! The theory simply does not fit the facts. Evolution is wrong. It is not true. It is incorrect. It is kaput. En panne. Time to knock it on the head. Unless, of course, you desperately want to believe it – or have a pet version of your own to promote.
Evolution’s latest answer is ‘cladistics’, a technique which assumes that, because evolution is axiomatic, every organism that ever lived was a ‘transitional form” anyway – and all we have to do is shuffle the fossil forms around and sequence them, with the help a powerful computer programme, then – Abracadabra! We have manufactured zillions of intermediate forms. How many would you like today, Sir? A top Cambridge professor was honest enough to say in my hearing, that ‘cladistics does not work’ because it is so subjective, you can make produce whatever you want.
In the days of Isaac Newton it was commonly believed that moon and planets needed to be attached to invisible ‘crystal’ or ‘heavenly’ spheres that kept them moving, otherwise, like a ball rolling on the ground, they would soon stop. Genius Newton realized they were kept moving by their ‘momentum’ and did not slow down because there was no friction out in space. So, Goodbye heavenly spheres! They did not exist. They never had existed. And so it is/was with Darwin’s zillions of mysterious missing intermediate forms. They never existed. Puff! All gone! Another false theory disposed of. Great job, Isaac!
Painful Problem 5: Micro- or Macro-evolution?
In 1927, Russian scientist Filipchenko introduced the terms ‘micro-evolution’ and ‘macro-evolution’ to distinguish between the limited variation within species, which had been familiar to plant and animal breeders for thousands of years – and the limitless variation Darwin’s theory postulated to try to make evolution work, e.g. to cause fish to grow legs and walk on the dry land, then invent wings and become birds, a classic bit of wishful thinking unsupported by fact.
Micro-evolution is, of course, a reality, and has been the mechanism by which the pair of dogs that Noah took on the ark have created the amazing range of breeds we have today. That limited variation, whereby dogs remain dogs no matter how much their body form varies, or why roses remain roses as new varieties arise, is carefully described in the Genesis account of creation as a process of reproducing ‘after their kind‘. Dogs are one ‘kind’ of animal, and when they mate and reproduce, according to Gregor Mendel’s laws, they always produce more dogs. And ditto for the cats and horse, potato and cabbage kinds – and, of course, zillions of generations of fruit flies, prized for their large genes and short reproduction cycle. By the way, did I ever mention how, in the early days, scientists working on fruit flies used to steal milk bottles from doorsteps, on the way to work, to use in the lab as cheap containers to breed them in?…
… Sorry to waffle on, folks, but this evolution nonsense has to stop!
… But meanwhile, for some strange reason, Sheldrake remains an evolutionist, and keeps dreaming of a successful outcome: ‘Hey! Could it be that the morphic field is what evolves? Now let me see… ‘ Oh, stop it Rupert!
Video about A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes
You can see more content about A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes on our youtube channel: Click Here
Question about A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes
If you have any questions about A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes, please let us know, all your questions or suggestions will help us improve in the following articles!
The article A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes was compiled by me and my team from many sources. If you find the article A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes helpful to you, please support the team Like or Share!
Rate Articles A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes
Rate: 4-5 stars
Search keywords A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes
A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes
way A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes
tutorial A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes
A Certain Species Of Animal Has Six Pairs Of Chromosomes free
#Epilogue #Evolution #BIG #MISTAKE