Read Online Creation Facts of Life by Gary Parker - Free Book Online Page B
Authors: Gary Parker
Ads: Link
is an extremely rare but more serious defect in developmental regulation that can produce a "caudal appendage" with some muscle, nerve, blood, and cartilage or bone tissue. Defects in other embryonic regulator genes can result in too many or too few parts, failure of growth or of resorption, parts growing together that should remain separate, or parts remaining separate that should grow together, etc.
Hox gene errors
in insects can result in legs growing where antennae should be, and in flies with an extra but functionless set of wings. Such defects tell us nothing about evolutionary ancestry, but a lot about how normal development requires extreme precision in activating the right genes in the right places at the right times for the right duration.
There are a few famous cases of human beings with hair over most of their bodies (hypertrichosis universalis). Normal human beings have hair, of course, so
all
nucleated cells in the human body have the DNA instructions for producing hair. Regulators that turn genes on and off, therefore, may result in more or less hair than the normal amount in the usual places, but such people just have "people genes" and are NOT "throwbacks" to the supposed "ape stage" in evolution!
Evolutionists once said that human embryonic development retraced stages in our supposed evolutionary history. That idea, the now-defunct "biogenetic law," was summarized in the pithy phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." (Want to sound educated? Just memorize that phrase!) The phrase means that the development of the embryo is supposed to retrace the evolution of its group. Dr. Down named a syndrome "Mongoloid idiocy" because he thought it represented a "throwback" to the "Mongolian stage" in human evolution.
The "throwback concept" was based on faked diagrams that brought modest disgrace to "Germany's Darwin," Ernst Haeckel, in the 1860s. 29 Yet the embryo diagrams falsified to support evolution over 140 years ago were still in the 2005 lab manual used in a state college biology class where I spoke in 2006.
After a university talk on creation in which I didn't mention the embryo, a student asked, "If God created us, why do human embryos have a yolk sac, gill slits, and tail?" Before I could say anything, a local professor scolded emphatically: "Sit down! Hush. We don't believe that anymore!" In a debate at the University of New Brunswick, my opponent actually complimented what I had to say about the human embryo, stressing that the "throwback theory" (based on fudged diagrams!) had been disproved decades ago and desperately needed to be removed from textbooks.
It was even once believed that the fertilized egg represented our one-celled ancestors, sort of the "amoeba stage." Sure enough, we start as small, round single cells, but notice how superficial that argument is. The evolutionists were just looking at the outside appearance of the egg cell. If we look just on the
outside appearance,
then maybe we're related to a marble, a BB pellet, or a ball bearing — they're small, round things! An evolutionist (or anyone else) would respond, of course, "That's crazy. Those things are totally different on the
inside
from a human egg cell." That's exactly the point. If you take a look on the inside, the "dot" we each start from is totally different from the first cell of every other kind of life. A mouse, an elephant, and a human being are identical in size and shape at the moment of conception. Yet in terms of DNA and protein, right at conception each of these types of life is as totally different chemically as each will ever be structurally. Even by mistake, a human being can't produce gills or a tail, because we just don't have and never had those DNA instructions.
The human egg cell, furthermore, is not just human, but also a unique individual. Eye color, general body size, and perhaps even temperament are already present in DNA, ready to come to visible expression.
The baby before birth is not even a part
Hox gene errors
in insects can result in legs growing where antennae should be, and in flies with an extra but functionless set of wings. Such defects tell us nothing about evolutionary ancestry, but a lot about how normal development requires extreme precision in activating the right genes in the right places at the right times for the right duration.
There are a few famous cases of human beings with hair over most of their bodies (hypertrichosis universalis). Normal human beings have hair, of course, so
all
nucleated cells in the human body have the DNA instructions for producing hair. Regulators that turn genes on and off, therefore, may result in more or less hair than the normal amount in the usual places, but such people just have "people genes" and are NOT "throwbacks" to the supposed "ape stage" in evolution!
Evolutionists once said that human embryonic development retraced stages in our supposed evolutionary history. That idea, the now-defunct "biogenetic law," was summarized in the pithy phrase, "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." (Want to sound educated? Just memorize that phrase!) The phrase means that the development of the embryo is supposed to retrace the evolution of its group. Dr. Down named a syndrome "Mongoloid idiocy" because he thought it represented a "throwback" to the "Mongolian stage" in human evolution.
The "throwback concept" was based on faked diagrams that brought modest disgrace to "Germany's Darwin," Ernst Haeckel, in the 1860s. 29 Yet the embryo diagrams falsified to support evolution over 140 years ago were still in the 2005 lab manual used in a state college biology class where I spoke in 2006.
After a university talk on creation in which I didn't mention the embryo, a student asked, "If God created us, why do human embryos have a yolk sac, gill slits, and tail?" Before I could say anything, a local professor scolded emphatically: "Sit down! Hush. We don't believe that anymore!" In a debate at the University of New Brunswick, my opponent actually complimented what I had to say about the human embryo, stressing that the "throwback theory" (based on fudged diagrams!) had been disproved decades ago and desperately needed to be removed from textbooks.
It was even once believed that the fertilized egg represented our one-celled ancestors, sort of the "amoeba stage." Sure enough, we start as small, round single cells, but notice how superficial that argument is. The evolutionists were just looking at the outside appearance of the egg cell. If we look just on the
outside appearance,
then maybe we're related to a marble, a BB pellet, or a ball bearing — they're small, round things! An evolutionist (or anyone else) would respond, of course, "That's crazy. Those things are totally different on the
inside
from a human egg cell." That's exactly the point. If you take a look on the inside, the "dot" we each start from is totally different from the first cell of every other kind of life. A mouse, an elephant, and a human being are identical in size and shape at the moment of conception. Yet in terms of DNA and protein, right at conception each of these types of life is as totally different chemically as each will ever be structurally. Even by mistake, a human being can't produce gills or a tail, because we just don't have and never had those DNA instructions.
The human egg cell, furthermore, is not just human, but also a unique individual. Eye color, general body size, and perhaps even temperament are already present in DNA, ready to come to visible expression.
The baby before birth is not even a part
Similar Books
