The research team may have used the “Missing Link” phrase to promote a documentary on the History Channel and a book; both titled “The Link.” See the following quotes and links for additional information about this, apparently, pre-mature claim:

“On the whole I think the evidence is less than convincing,” said Chris Gilbert, a paleoanthropologist at Yale University. “They make an intriguing argument but I would definitely say that the consensus is not in favor of the hypothesis they’re proposing.” . . .

“The PR campaign on this fossil is I think more of a story than the fossil itself,” said anthropologist Matt Cartmill of Duke University in North Carolina. “It’s a very beautiful fossil, but I didn’t see anything in this paper that told me anything decisive that was new.”

Most experts agree that the find is significant, if only for its impressive degree of completeness, but some were put off by the bells and whistles that went along with the publicity campaign around Ida. . . .

“It’s not a missing link, it’s not even a terribly close relative to monkeys, apes and humans, which is the point they’re trying to make,” [Carnegie Museum of Natural History curator of vertebrate paleontology Chris] Beard said.

Amid Media Circus, Scientists Doubt ‘Ida’ Is Your Ancestor
Clara Moskowitz, LiveScience, May 20, 2009

More quotes from other scientists

Creation View of this Find

Click here to see the debate

Note: This article is loosly based on Josh McDowell’s book “More Than a Carpenter.” I highly recommend this short book if you want powerful evidence supporting what Jesus claims in the New Testament.

He claimed to be God

Did Buddha, Muhammad, or Confucius claim to be God? No.

Again the high priest asked him, “Are you the Christ, the Son of the Blessed One?” “I am,” said Jesus. “And you will see the Son of Man sitting at the right hand of the Mighty One and coming on the clouds of heaven.” Mark 14:61-62

When asked if Jesus ever existed, most will say yes but qualify the answer with something like, “I believe he was just a great moral teacher.” But why were the Jews (not the Romans, by-the-way) so determined to kill him? The Jews, assisted by the Romans, did eventually kill Him by crucifixion. So, why would the Jews want to kill a good moral teacher? It’s because of his claims of deity! Consider these additional verses:

“I and the Father are one.” Again the Jews picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many great miracles from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any of these,” replied the Jews, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” John 10:30-33

“But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?” Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.” Matthew 16:15-17

They all asked, “Are you then the Son of God?” He replied, “You are right in saying I am.” Then they said, “Why do we need any more testimony? We have heard it from his own lips.” Luke 22:70-71

Throughout the four Gospels of the New Testament, Jesus made such claims. So, not only was he a great teacher, he was a great teacher that claimed to be God. The Jews wanted to kill Jesus for his blasphemy (i.e. claims to be God) – not because of his teachings (other than claims of deity) or miracles.

Jesus is different because he claimed to be God. Is what he said true? Well, there are three possibilities (1) and you have to decide which one you believe.

1. Jesus was lying and, therefore, Jesus was not really God
2. Jesus thought he was telling the truth, but he was really a lunatic, and, therefore, Jesus was not really God
3. Jesus was, and still is, God

There is a fourth possibility. Maybe Jesus never existed and everything written about him was a great hoax! Let’s see if the New Testament can stand up to some scrutiny.

Has the New Testament been accurately reproduced over time?

This may be shocking to the uninformed, but it turns out that the New Testament has more than eight times the number of “original language” manuscript copies as the second closest ancient manuscript rival, Homer, at 643 copies. Additionally, the time gap for the earliest New Testament copies is between 50 – 225 years depending on the copy. The second closest is Homer at 400 years. Click here for more detail.

Some external references to Jesus are documented in Chapter 6 of Josh McDowell’s “A Biblical Defense of His Deity”, a free publication available as a PDF.

It is clear that there are a substantial number of Greek and Latin manuscripts that can be cross checked to validate the accuracy of modern copies and translations of the New Testament. To dismiss modern copies of the New Testament as flawed and inaccurate is to also dismiss all other modern copies of ancient manuscripts.

The combination of the New Testament manuscripts and other external references to Jesus make it difficult to believe that Jesus never existed and His entire life is an elaborate fabrication. Furthermore, to state that Jesus never existed would also call into question the existence of many other ancient historical figures.

Can you believe what Jesus claimed?

That is ultimately up to you. However, it is worth examining how the apostles behaved after Jesus died on the cross and was resurrected. Other than Judas Iscariot, who betrayed Jesus, all of Jesus’ disciples died defending the deity and teachings of Jesus including his physical resurrection. Most died by crucifixion, but others, by sword, arrows or spear. John was the only disciple that died a natural death. (1)

Why would 10 of the disciples suffer unnatural, horrible deaths for a lie? Haven’t many others throughout history died for a lie? Yes – but they didn’t know it was a lie – they thought they died for the truth. (1) When Jesus died on the cross, the disciples were initially discouraged and disappointed.

When they came back from the tomb, they told all these things to the Eleven and to all the others. It was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and the others with them who told this to the apostles. But they did not believe the women, because their words seemed to them like nonsense. Peter, however, got up and ran to the tomb. Bending over, he saw the strips of linen lying by themselves, and he went away, wondering to himself what had happened. Luke 24:9-12

Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. Mark 16:14

It wasn’t until Jesus, over a period of 40 days after his resurrection, appeared to the “Eleven” numerous times, that their faith was (eventually) restored and believed everything Jesus had told them.

When they saw Him, they worshipped Him; but some were doubtful. Matthew 28:18

Even “Doubting” Thomas eventually believed:

Now Thomas (called Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!” But he said to them, Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.” A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.” Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” John 20:24-29

Some of the disciples were initially doubtful about Jesus’ resurrection, however, with each additional encounter with Jesus over the 40 days, their doubt waned and their faith in his resurrection increased. Eventually, all eleven disciples began to boldly preach about Jesus.

With great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and much grace was upon them all. Acts 4:33

The disciple’s behavior after Jesus’ death and resurrection, initial doubt and then bold belief after Jesus visited them numerous times then being killed defending Jesus, serve as powerful evidence that what Jesus claimed can indeed be believed.

Jesus was resurrected and is alive today

Jesus predicted his own death and resurrection:

From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life. Matthew 16:21

His resurrection was also foretold as a prophecy of the Old Testament written 1000 years prior to the birth of Jesus.

Therefore my heart is glad and my tongue rejoices; my body also will rest secure, because you will not abandon me to the grave, nor will you let your Holy One see decay. Psalm 16:9-10

Isaiah 53 also references several prophecies that were fulfilled by Jesus related to this crucifixion and resurrection.

After the suffering of his soul, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities. Isaiah 53: 11

The entire weight of Christianity rests on the belief that Jesus was resurrected. If this historical event did not actually happen, and was instead, a hoax, Christianity would certainly be the biggest lie ever told. However, many have unsuccessfully tried (including Josh McDowell) to prove this event didn’t happen and, again, I recommend Josh’s book “More Than a Carpenter” as a reference for more detail on this topic.

Suffice it to say that that what makes Jesus different is his resurrection from the dead and is living today at the right hand of the Mighty One.

His life fulfilled many ancient prophecies

Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. Isaiah 7:14

Jesus was indeed born of the virgin Mary.

“But you, Bethlehem Ephrathah, though you are small among the clans of Judah, out of you will come for me one who will be ruler over Israel, whose origins are from of old, from ancient times.” Micah 5:2

Jesus was indeed born in Bethlehem.

But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was upon him, and by his wounds we are healed. Isaiah 53:5

This is a prediction of Jesus’ crucifixion.

Jesus fulfilled many old testament prophecies and these are carefully caltaloged by many websites. Here is one of the many:

www.bprc.org

References

1. More Than A Carpenter, Josh McDowell, 1977

For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well. Psalm 139

Watch Video (1)

1) Inner Life of the Cell animation conception and scientific content by Alain Viel and Robert A. Lue.
Animation by John Liebler/XVIVO.

On this website, under the “My World View” link, I use the Apostles’ Creed as a succinct statement of what I believe. I was recently asked about the statement “He descended into Hell.” Did Jesus really descend into Hell? All I could say was, “I think so, but I’ve never studied this in depth; I’ll have to get back with you with a more informed response.” The following essay captures what I’ve learned after some recent study.

The phrase “He descended into Hell” does not occur in the Bible, however, it is commonly found in the Apostles’ Creed. The Apostles’ Creed was defined over a long period of time from about A.D 200 – 750. The phase in question has been added and dropped a few times over the years and is now found in most, if not all, versions of the Creed. For example, it can be found in the “Catechism of the Catholic Church.”

The phrase remains somewhat controversial based on what I’ve read. For example, there are many websites containing very detailed studies of this topic that conclude Jesus did indeed descend into Hell after he died. On the other hand, I have a book titled “Systematic Theology” by Wayne Grudem that has a Chapter 27, Section C.2.f “Did Christ Descend Into Hell? that concludes “Concerning the doctrinal question of whether Christ did descend into hell after he died, the answer from several passages of Scripture seems clearly to be no.”

With that said, here are the notes I’ve captured on the topic and my conclusion.

Definition of a few key words used in Scripture

Hell: Is a a modern English translation of the Greek words Hades and Gehenna and the Hebrew word Sheol. The etymology of the word Hell is long and may date back as for as the Old Norse word Hel. However, Hell is not a Greek or Hebrew word.

Hades: Greek word; From Strong’s Concordance:

1) name Hades or Pluto, the god of the lower regions

2) Orcus, the nether world, the realm of the dead

3) later use of this word: the grave, death, hell

Sheol: Hebrew word; From Strong’s Concordance:

1) sheol, underworld, grave, hell, pit

a) the underworld

b) Sheol – the OT designation for the abode of the dead

1) place of no return

2) without praise of God

3) wicked sent there for punishment

4) righteous not abandoned to it

5) of the place of exile

6) of extreme degradation in sin

Gehenna: Etymology contains both Greek and Hebrew versions of the word. Translated as Hell in KJV of Bible.

1. A place or state of torment or suffering.

2. The abode of condemned souls; hell.

Key scriptures that seem to support Jesus went to Hell

Acts 2:27(KJV) – Because thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, neither wilt thou suffer thine Holy One to see corruption.

For Reasoning: Jesus can’t leave a soul in hell unless he was in hell in the first place.
Against Reasoning: The translation of the word hades/sheol should be grave in this case; not hell.

Romans 10:6-7(KJV) – 6) But the righteousness which is of faith speaketh on this wise, Say not in thine heart, Who shall ascend into heaven? (that is, to bring Christ down from above:) 7) Or, Who shall descend into the deep? (that is, to bring up Christ again from the dead.)

For Reasoning: Paul was anticipating questions that his readers may ask and, if it was not widely known that Jesus descended into hell, he would not have mentioned this anticipated question.
Against Reasoning: Again, the reasoning depends upon a different translation of the words hades/sheol other than hell.

Ephesians 4:8-10(KJV) – “8″) Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9) (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10) He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.)

For Reasoning: When Jesus when to preach to some of the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19) he later led them out to Heaven. He could do this only if he visited Hell (or a certain part of Hell that contained non-condemned spirits).
Against Reasoning: Reasoning depends upon a translation that “lower parts of the earth” mean THE earth and refers to Jesus descending from Heaven to earth to be born a man.

1 Peter 3:18-20(KJV) – 18) For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the just for the unjust, that he might bring us to God, being put to death in the flesh, but quickened by the Spirit: 19) By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison; 20) Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

For Reasoning: If Jesus preached to spirits in prison (in Hell), he must have visited Hell.
Against Reasoning: These verses could be interpreted to mean Jesus preached, via the Holy Spirit, to the disobedient people of Noah’s time while they were still alive. See link to ApologeticsPress.Org below for a more thorough explanation. This is also the same explanation that Wayne Grudem uses in his book Systematic Theology.

1 Peter 4:6(KJV) – For unto this end was the gospel preached even to the dead, that they might be judged indeed according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.
For Reasoning: This verse refers to Jesus preaching to the spirits in prison (1 Peter 3:19)
Against Reasoning: This verse could mean Jesus preached to people that are now dead but were alive when He preached to them.

Reference to different parts of Hell

Story of Lazarus and the Rich Man (Luke 16: 19-28) (ESV)

19 “There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. 20 And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, 21 who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. 22 The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, 23 and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. 24 And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’ 27 And he said, ‘Then I beg you, father, to send him to my father’s house— 28 for I have five brothers—so that he may warn them, lest they also come into this place of torment.’

The story indicates that Lazarus, Abraham and the rich man were in Hades, yet the rich man was separated from Lazarus and Abraham by a great chasm. Obviously, Abraham would not be among the eternally condemned and suffering. This supports the concept there must have been two areas of Hades; one for the eternally condemned and one for others waiting for to be released to ascend to Heaven.

Tying it all together

Matthew 12:40 (ESV) – For just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the great fish, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

While Jesus was hanging on the cross, he spoke to the thief,
Luke 23:42-43 (ESV) – 42 And he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.” 43 And he said to him, “Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in Paradise.”

Jesus said that “TODAY you will be with me in Paradise.” If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead for three days and three nights and THEN ascend into Heaven, where is Paradise? Paradise may the the location in Hades that Abraham and Lazarus were occupying in Luke 16: 19-28. Additionally, this may the the location Jesus visited when he “preached unto the spirits in prison.”

I’m inclined to believe the simplest explanation is likely to be the correct explanation. After reading the verses included herein and context around them, it takes some careful and complex reasoning to conclude that Jesus DID NOT visit Hades. Therefore, I’m inclined to believe Jesus DID visit Hades. However, this appears to be an area that, for some reason, God has left rather vague in the Word and remains a controversial question.

Views that support Jesus descended to Hell:
Catholic Catechism
Heaven.Net

Views that oppose Jesus descended to Hell:
ApologeticsPress.Org
Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem

Darwin Starts with a Populated Environment

Darwin’s theory of Decent with Modification through Natural Selection does not address how life began. Darwin’s theory attempts to explain how, over time, some members of a well marked species may begin to diverge in organic structure, habits, etc. into incipient (or emergent) species and eventually into an entirely new species. Darwin’s studies, observations, and postulations begin with an environment already significantly populated with organisms. For instance, in The Origin of Species chapter on the Struggle for Existence, the struggle is against numerous other competing species and is a central component to Darwin’s theory on Natural Selection.

Darwin states in The Origin of Species, Instinct chapter:

“I must premise, that I have nothing to do with the origin of the primary mental powers, any more than I have with that of life itself (1).”

Darwin’s definition of Natural Selection

Darwin states, in The Origin of Species:

“Can it, then, be thought improbable, seeing that variations useful to man [under domestic breeding] have undoubtedly occurred, that other variations useful in some way to each being in the great and complex battle for life, should sometimes occur in the course of thousands of generations? If such do occur, can we doubt that individuals having any advantage, however slight, over others, would have the best chance for surviving and of procreating their kind? On the other hand, we may feel sure that any variation in the least degree injurious would be rigidly destroyed. This preservation of favorable variations and the rejection of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection.” (1)

Problem’s with Darwin’s source of variation required by Natural Selection

Darwin spent a lot of time studying variation in the offspring of domestic plants and animals. His observations in this area are discussed in the first chapter of The Origin of Species, Variation under Domestication, and are the basis for his theory. Darwin states:

“The great power of this principle of selection is not hypothetical. It is certain that several of our eminent breeders have, even within a single lifetime, modified to a large extent some breeds of cattle and sheep. … Breeders habitually speak of an animal’s organization as something quite plastic, which they can model almost at they please.” (1)

It is quite apparent, after reading this chapter, the source of variation Darwin was referring to is explained by classical laws of genetic inheritance discovered by Gregor Mendel and not a process of endless variation that Darwin was envisioning. He was simply witnessing the expression of existing genes within the gene pool of the population he was studying. The rate of change in domestic breeding programs cannot be explained by random genetic mutations (more on random genetic mutations later). It should be noted there is ultimately a limit, although very large, on the trait variation available to a breeder. The limit is based on the number of alleles for each gene available in the gene pool represented by the breeding population.

Darwin states in the Origins chapter, Natural Selection:

“Not that, as I believe, any extreme amount of variability is necessary; as man can certainly produce great results by adding up in any given direction mere individual differences, so could Nature, but far more easily, form having incompatibly longer time at her disposal.” (1)

From his observations of domestic breeding, Darwin mistakenly extrapolated variations (traits or genes) can continue to be “selected” endlessly until a new, strongly marked species has emerged from the parent species. The only way additional potential variations can become available is via a random genetic mutation in the parent’s germline (i.e. reproductive) cells that adds a new allele (version of a specific gene) to the gene pool within the breeding population. This will not typically occur during the lifetime of a cattle breeder.

While Darwin was writing his “Origins” abstract, the genesis of modern genetics was being formulated by Gregor Mendel. Gregor published his work in 1866, just seven years after Darwin published Origins. Gregor Mendel’s work was initially ignored, but in the 1900 time frame, his work was rediscovered leading, ultimately, to the discovery of DNA in 1944.

As a result of the creation of the field of genetics and the discovery of DNA, Darwin’s supporters concluded his theory required a new source of variation not constrained by the large but limited pool of genes in a given population.

It quickly became apparent that Darwin’s observations of variation under domestic breeding and his “Laws of Variation” could not explain the variation required by his theory of Natural Selection that leads to new species. As the study of genetics began to mature, it was discovered that genetic material, DNA, can mutate under certain conditions. Supporters of Darwin’s theory soon assigned random genetic mutation the role of providing the variation required by Darwin’s theory of Natural Selection. But, can random genetic mutation fulfill this role? The theory of evolution will live or die by the answer!

Dr J.C. Sanford states in his book, The Mystery of the Genome:

“Darwin’s only truly innovative concept was the idea that the primary creative force in nature might be natural selection. Yet he had no conception of genetics or mutation, and therefore had no conception of what was actually being “selected”. So he was entirely ignorant of all the problems addressed in this book [Dr. Sanford’s book discusses problems with random mutations as the source of variation] … Not until much later did the neo-Darwinists synthesize genetics, mutation, and natural selection – creating the field of Population Genetics.” (2)

Darwin states in Origins, chapter Laws of Variation:

I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations—so common and multiform in organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree in those in a state of nature—had been due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation.

Darwin acknowledges his lack of understanding of the source of variation. The bulk of the variation Darwin observes and describes is solely due to classical gene recombination during and organism’s reproduction cycle. It should also be noted that Darwin thought that the source of variation was NOT random. Darwin thought the variation was caused by reproductive systems being exposed to “conditions of life”.

Darwin’s Laws of Variation have proven NOT to be a source of variation needed to support his theory, thus creating a dilemma for Darwin’s supporters. There was a period of time when this was a serious problem for Darwin’s theory. However, when random genetic mutation was discovered, it was quickly substituted for Darwin’s Laws of Variation, consequently rescuing his theory.

The Human Genome – An Information Masterpiece

Modern evolutionary theory states that random genetic mutations, filtered through the sieve of natural selection, have built the gnomes of all living things starting with a hypothetical single celled, primordial organism. It should be noted that, unlike the theory of evolution, the scientific community has not rallied around a natural process that can explain the formation of the first living cell.

The human genome is composed of two sets of 3 billion individual “letters” called nucleotides or base pairs represented symbolically as A, T, C, and G. Current understanding of this genome indicates about 30% is functional and the rest is “junk” DNA (2). The functional portion contains genes that code for over 100,000 known proteins in body. Over the past few years, as the level of understanding of the human genome has increased, the amount of DNA that is considered functional has dramatically increased. This trend will likely continue as a deeper understanding of the human DNA develops.

Modern evolution theory implies random genetic mutation and natural selection have progressively increased the information content in the DNA of living organisms from the first living cell to the pinnacle of complexity, the human being. This represents an increase in genetic information from a few thousand base pairs to 3 billion base pairs and is a dramatic increase in the information content from the first genome to the human genome.

Claude Shannon introduced the concept of Information Theory in his studies of communication systems. Although I will not explain his theory in this article, information theory has raised some very substantial problems with the idea that a process (natural selection) involving a random source of data (random genetic mutations) can produce “meaningful” information. Please read Meaningful Information and Artifact by Sean D. Pitman M.D. to learn more about this topic.

What are genetic mutations?

Genetic mutations are typically copying errors that occur during DNA replication when a cell divides. Errors are very rare, but when they do occur it typically involves a single base pair (A,T,C or G) changing to another letter.

The encoding of genes in DNA is considered a form of information analogous to a book. A mutation is analogous to a letter in a word being randomly changed to some other letter. When the letter is changed, either a valid new word is formed or an invalid word is formed. In the former case, the original meaning of the sentence may be changed. In the latter case, the sentence may become meaningless. When such errors reduce (or delete) the information content in a book or DNA they are considered deleterious (or information reducing) in nature.

Mutations can be categorized as follows:

• Positive mutation – helps an organism produce more offspring that survive to also reproduce.
• Negative mutation – reduces an organism’s ability to produce offspring that survive to also reproduce.
• Neutral mutation – has no effect on an organism’s ability to survive and reproduce.

How often do selectable beneficial mutations occur that add information to a genome?

There are many cases where a mutation is considered beneficial. However, in all cases, it has eventually been proven that the mutation did not add new information of the DNA such as a new gene; instead, the DNA information content was reduced. In all cases, there was a modification of existing genes that, for example, reduced the specificity of a protein (loss of information) that produced the beneficial result. Although this was beneficial to the organism, this type of mutation doesn’t represent the gene building, information adding type of mutation required to build vast, complex genomes. (2) (3)

It is accepted in both the evolution and creation communities that beneficial mutations can occur, but most if not all result in information loss in the organism’s genome. It is also recognized that it is theoretically possible for beneficial, information building mutations to occur. However, this has not been unambiguously documented in any research to date.

Dr. Sanford references a study by J. Bergman in his book:

“Bergman (2004) has studied the topic of beneficial mutations. Among other things, he did a simple literature search via Biological Abstracts and Medicine. He found 453,732 “mutation” hits, but among these only 186 mentioned the word “beneficial” (about 4 in 10,000). When those 186 references were reviewed, almost all the presumed “beneficial mutations” were only beneficial in a very narrow sense – but consistently involved loss-of-function changes (hence loss of information). He was unable to find a single example of a mutation which unambiguously created new information.” (2)

Where must mutations occur to be inherited?

Mutations must be inherited by offspring in order for natural selection to work. Additionally, natural selection can only select an entire organism. It has no power to see inside an organism to select only the heart or kidney or a specific mutation of a single DNA base pair. Natural selection simply destroys the less fit organisms and preserves the more fit organisms.

Thus, the only meaningful mutations are those that occur in the reproductive cells. A mutation that occurs in a muscle cell of a bear will die with that bear and not be passed along to any offspring.

Kimura’s “No Selection Zone” (2) (4)

Dr. Sanford references a study by Motoo Kimura that indicates the overwhelming majority of mutations are near neutral and the rest are negative or have “selective disadvantage”. Kimura didn’t show any mutations that have selective advantage (positive mutations) because they are so rare they were not worthy of consideration in his study. (4)

Earlier, it was mentioned that natural selection works at the level of the entire organism. If a mutation occurs in an organism as the first step in a chain of mutations that would potentially benefit the organism in some way, but by itself doesn’t offer any advantage, natural selection will be blind to the change and will not favor that individual organism in the “struggle for existence”. Additionally, if the mutation doesn’t damage the organism, the mutation is considered a near neutral mutation.

Kimura used a rating scale for mutations that ranged from neutral (0) to lethal (1) in a graph of all the mutations he studied. Nearly all mutations are clustered near 0 (neutral) in his graph. A few were spread out towards 1 (lethal) on the “selective disadvantage” side of the graph and none were shown on the “selective advantage” side of the graph.

Kimura is famous for introducing the concept of a “No Selection Zone” close to 0 in his graph. His research and analysis showed that natural selection cannot “see” mutations that don’t clearly give the organism an advantage or a disadvantage in the struggle for existence. As a result, a species may, over time, build up a “load” of neutral or slightly deleterious mutations; sort of like “rusting out” the genome rather than only “preserving and adding up all that is good”. (1) (2)

This contradicts Darwin’s statements in Origins:

“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working, whenever and wherever opportunity offers, at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” (1)

The implication of Kimura’s research is that natural selection cannot “see” the vast majority of genetic mutations and when the sought after beneficial mutation does occur, it is predicted to be within Kimura’s “no selection zone”, thus never making it into the gene pool of the population.

So, how often does a beneficial mutation add information to the genome? Statistically Never. We will discuss more reasons why this is the case below.

Reasons a beneficial mutation may not get “fixed” in a population’s gene pool

There are numerous reasons why, once the highly sought after and rare beneficial mutation occurs, it may be lost. For example, the organism containing the mutation may die before it is able to produce offspring and pass the mutation along. The mutation could be recessive and never be expressed in the organism. The mutation may be lost from the population due to genetic “drift” in the gene pool of the population before it has a chance to be “fixed” in the gene pool. There are a number of other factors that together represent some statistical probability that a new beneficial mutation will be lost before it is able to take over a population. These and other related reasons that a beneficial mutation may not get “fixed” in to a population are effectively “noise” that interferes with natural seletion’s ability to see the beneficial mutation.

Dr. Lee Spetner’s Calculation (3)

In his book, “Not by Chance”, Dr. Lee Spetner indicates mutations rates are between 0.1 and 10 per billion transcriptions (DNA copying process) (Fersht 1981, Drake 1969, 1991). For other organisms, the mutation rate is between 0.01 and 1 per billion transcriptions. Spetner performs a calculation to determine the probability of random genetic mutations guided by natural selection can produce a new species that requires 500 steps (Stebbins 1966). Stebbins, an architect of modern evolution, estimated it would take 500 steps to get a new species. (3)

Spetner indicates the following information is needed:

1. What is the chance of getting a mutation? (mean mutation rate used is 10e-10)
2. What fraction of the mutations has a selective advantage (i.e. natural selection will see the mutation as beneficial and preserve it)? (0.1% is used in calculation)
3. How many replications there are in each step of the chain of cumulative selection (i.e. how many births will it take to “fix” the new mutation into the population)? (50 million is used in the calculation)
4. How many of those steps there have to be to achieve a new species? (500 steps is used in the calculation)

For a mutation to be a part of a typical step, Spetner sets the following criteria:

• It must have a positive selective value, and
• Add a little information to the genome

Spetner calculates the chances of a new species being produced by this process as 3.6x10e2738 to one. In his book, Spetner works through several examples leading up to a probability that he thinks most people would agree is impossible such as flipping a coin 150 times and each time it displayed heads (10e45 to one). The probability in the new species example is more than 2000 orders of magnitude smaller than that in the coin example. Thus, Spetner concludes that random genetic variation guided by natural selection cannot produce a new species from an existing one.

Dr. J.C. Sanford’s Calculation (2)

According sources referenced in Dr. Sanford’s book, the human genetic mutation rate is between 100-300 mutations (within the reproductive cells) per person per generation (Kondrashov, 2002; Nachman and Crowell, 2000).

Dr. Sanford, using various assumptions used in the field of population genetics calculates it would take 12 million years to “fix” a single base pair mutation into a population. This mutation is only the first of a series of mutations that would be required to create an entirely new gene. He further calculates that to create a gene with 1000 base pairs, it would take 12 million x 1000 or 12 billion years. This is obviously too slow to support the creation of the human genome containing 3 billion base pairs.

Sequence Space Problem for Theory of Evolution (6)

To round out this EXCEEDINGLY LONG article, I recommend you read and essay by Sean D. Pitman M.D. titled Limited Evolutionary Potential that details the sequence space issue facing the evolution of complex amino acid sequences.

REFERENCES

1. On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Charles Darwin, 1859
2. Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Dr. J.C. Sanford, 2005
3. Not By Chance, Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution, Dr. Lee Spetner, 1997
4. Model of effective neutral mutations in which selective constraint is incorporated, Motoo Kimura, 1979
5. Evolutionary Rate at the Molecular Level, Motoo Kimura, 1968
6. The Emporer has No Clothes – Naturalism and The Theory of Evolution, Website, Sean D. Pitman, M.D.

Now, for the good stuff. I’ve been doing a lot of research on DNA, gene theory, etc. and find the topic fascinating. The complexity of DNA, coding and manufacturing mechanisms is astoundingly complex.

A few books I’ve read recently:
Genetics DeMystified by Edward Willet
Not by Chance – Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Dr. Lee Spetner
Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J.C. Sanford

The Spetner and Sanford books demonstrate some of the problems with Neo-Darwinian theory in the area of genetics.

Cells come in two main flavors; those with a well-defined nucleus surrounded by a membrane (eukaryotic) and those without a well-defined nucleus surrounded by a membrane (prokaryotic). All multicellular and some single celled organisms have eukaryotic cells. For the sake of brevity, the discussion will be limited to eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells are made of an outer membrane, nucleus, many organelles, and cytoplasm (click HERE for nice picture and more detail). The nucleus contains the DNA which is organized into pairs of chromosomes.

Human cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46. Each chromosome contains a continuous molecule (or strand) of DNA. Each DNA strand contains coding sequences called genes. Genes (genotype) determine the characteristics of an organism’s physical features (phenotype) such as hair color, size of nose, etc. Environmental factors also contribute to the physical characteristics of an organism such as how muscular an individual will be. For example, muscles grow when exercised regularly. Overall body size can increase/decrease depending on many factors such as diet.

Chromosomes in a pair have an identical set of genes, however, each chromosome may have a different version, called an allele, of each gene. When a chromosome pair has two different alleles of a gene, a factor called dominance comes into play that determines which allele will be expressed in the phenotype. This is the dominant/recessive trait concept that Gregor Mendel discovered in his research with pea plants in the 1860′s.

A chromosome is a DNA strand tightly wound into a spiral shape. The DNA molecule has two “vertebrate” made of alternating sugar (deoxyribose) and phosphate molecules. This double backbone, wound in a spiral shape, forms the double helix shape that DNA is famous for. Attached to each backbone are small nitrogenous base molecules made of oxygen and nitrogen atoms arranged in rings. There are four types of these bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T). A weak hydrogen bond between the bases hold the two backbones together to form the DNA molecule structure. Adenine (A) always pairs with thymine (T) and guanine (G) always pairs with cytosine (C) to form the four possible “states” of a base pair: AT, TA, CG, GC. These four possible base pairs, when arranged in a sequence, form the DNA code that is used to sequence amino acids into protein molecules – the building blocks of life.

There are 20 amino acids used to build polypeptides called proteins and each is coded for by a sequence of three bases, called a codon, on one side of the DNA strand. For example, the “Asp” amino acid is coded for by the GAT and GAC base sequence. Since there are more codon sequences (4 possible bases, 3 bases long = 64 possible combinations) than amino acids (20), more than one codon can code for the same amino acid. There are also START and STOP codons that are used to frame the code sequence. Note: As a software developer myself, this sounds very similar to certain types of software programming languages.

The process used to manufacture proteins occurs in the following steps:

1. An RNA polymerases enzyme unwinds a section of DNA that contains the gene for the protein being built
2. The gene is copied into a sequence of nucleotides called messenger RNA or mRNA
3. The mRNA chain leaves the nucleus of the cell into the cytoplasm and travels to the transcription location
4. A ribosome protein attaches to the mRNA and facilitates the manufacture of the protein being manufactured
5. Another type of RNA called transfer RNA (tRNA) transfer amino acids (like worker bees) to the ribosome in the sequence dictated by the mRNA
6. Once the first amino acid has been delivered, the second amino acid is then delivered and they are joined
7. The ribosome moves down the mRNA, one codon at a time, building the protein molecule from amino acids until it encounters the STOP codon

At this point the newly created protein is released to perform the function it was created to perform.

Following are a few excellent videos that show the process described above. The videos make a lot more sense if you have read all of the above information first as many of the key words used above are used in the videos.

NOTE: You may need to adjust the volume using the speaker icon on the video to hear the sound.

DNA Translation – process to manufacture proteins

This video shows real time simulation of:
Chromosome wrapping – process to wind up DNA into the shape a chromosome
DNA Replication – process to duplicate DNA in preparation for cell division
DNA Transcription – process to copy genes onto mRNA
DNA Translation – process to manufacture proteins

Unlocking the Mystery of Life – Discovery Institute

Implication of this Vast Complexity
The DNA mechanisms described above are found in all living things. The specific details of the mechanisms may vary by type of organism, but central to it all is the DNA code used to construct the organism. Does DNA and related processes represent irreducible complexity?

Consider what has to be present, simultaneously, in that infamous first cell that emerged from the primordial soup. A cell membrane is required to contain the contents of the cell and separate it from the environment. DNA code is required to build the cell membrane and all other components of the cell. RNA and ribosomes (or equivalent) are required to transcribe and translate the DNA code. Various proteins, enzymes, etc., are required to initiate and carry out cell division. All these things seem to be needed for basic functions of a cell, simultaneously.

Can common decent, natural selection, genetic mutations, etc. be invoked to create the first functioning cell? The answer is no. Why not? Prior to the first cell coming into existence, there were no decedents to select, no DNA to mutate, etc. Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, makes the point that the reason a watch implies a designer is that the watch can’t replicate itself – it’s not a “replicator”. Living organisms, he says, can replicate themselves, and thus, genetic mutation and natural selection can drive increasing complexity in the offspring of replicators. Additionally, evolutionists argue that living things are exempt from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, for similar reasons.

NOTE: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that, without external intervention, “things” tend to become more disorganized over time.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. – Romans 1 (ESV)

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal signed into law last week a measure that would grant teachers and students the freedom to challenge and examine critically the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom.

The so called “Science Education Act,” the latest in a series of academic freedom bills that have swept across as many as six states, cruised through the state legislature with unanimous levels of approval.

Lawmakers said that the new law will help bring an end to allegations that teachers and students who share views contradicting or challenging the tenets of Darwinism in the classroom are marginalized, discriminated, or ostracized.

The law will also help to supply teachers with supplementary textbooks that will give greater freedom in the classroom to analyze and critique existing scientific theories concerning evolution.

While supporters of the measure say the recent measure is an important step in securing safe academic environments where “critical thinking skills, logical analysis, and open and objective discussion of scientific theories” are cherished, detractors say that the new law represents nothing more than a masked agenda to install religion in schools.

Americans United, which was just one among the many groups that tried to urge Gov. Jindal to veto the bill on the basis that it was a violation of the separation between church and state, blasted the new law in a series of statements.

“Louisiana has a long and unfortunate history of trying to substitute dogma for science in … classrooms,” AU executive director Rev. Barry Lynn said, according to Reuters.

“Americans United and other groups contend that ‘supplemental materials’ are likely to be anti-evolution books, DVDs and other items produced by fundamentalist Christian ministries,” the group said.

Supporters of the law, however, say that the language used in the measure is clear regarding the separation between church and state.

“The proposed Louisiana law expressly states in Section 1C that it ‘shall not be construed to promote any religious doctrine, promote discrimination for or against a particular set of religious beliefs, or promote discrimination for or against religion or nonreligion,’” said Dr. John West, vice president for Public Policy and Legal Affairs at Discovery Institute, in a statement.

West, who represents the largest intelligent design think-tank in the nation, emphasized that neither his nor any other organization’s views would be favored under the new law. The measure is about promoting fairness, he said.

“Intelligent design is currently not in the Louisiana state science standards and so could not be taught. But this allows scientific criticisms of Darwin’s theory to be taught,” he concluded, according to Reuters.

AIG News to Note Article

The Advocate/WBRZ Article

Evolution is starting to lose ground within the public education system as more and more evidence from the study of the human genome is revealed that debunks the primary axiom of the Neo Darwinian Theory (NDT): Man is the product of random mutation and natural selection. As it turns out, random genetic mutation cannot be the mechanism that provides the phenotype variation required by NDT.

BATON ROUGE, La. — Arguments over science and religion have resumed at the state Capitol with a House panel approving a bill to let public school teachers offer alternatives to evolutionary theory and a Senate committee voting to ban government funding for what is often called “therapeutic cloning.”

Proponents said the bill approved Wednesday by the House Education Committee would promote “critical analysis” of scientific issues including cloning, evolution and global warming. Opponents said it is an attempt to inject religion into science classes.

The other bill, approved by the Senate Health and Welfare Committee, would outlaw government funding for therapeutic cloning – the asexual creation of an early stage human embryo for the harvesting of stem cells that scientists hope could be used to cure disease. Opponents said the process destroys human life.