The Human Choice - 10


Advancing insight into the structure and operation of genetics is cause for something of a stir among biologists. It has been found that genetic material is often found to be in pieces spread along chains of DNA in an apparently erratic way. This discovery has yet to be explained by those who believe in chance creation but it presents no problem to those who accept the evidence that life forms appeared on earth as whole, very complex and complete units. In this understanding a limited number of life-forms each carry the entire genetic program for its kind. That is: each genus specialises out from its own original, complex gene pool.

Assuming that the entire RNA load for related families was originally arranged on a DNA chain, it is reasonable that gaps appear as individuals specialise in diverse environments and forms. In the process the genetic load would be divided between family groups. The sections lost to one group or another would then appear as gaps on the DNA chain and be maintained as non-constructive links in the interests of maintaining the order of genetic material. This is just as would be expected in a system of intelligent creation.

It is interesting to note that one of the acclaimed writers on this subject, Francis Crick, in his article in "Science, Vol. 204, April 1979" says, quote:

Should a chromosomal gene arise whose transcript was processed to make more than one protein, I would expect that in the course of evolution the gene would be duplicated, one copy subsequently specialising on one of the proteins and the other copy on the other. If this point of view is correct, then one would expect multiple-choice genes to occur only rarely in the chromosomes of eukaryotes.

Crick, of course, to maintain his academic position, must bow to the evolution assumption; however, it is the evidence, not the facade, that we are interested in. What he is saying is that if we had a gene which contained information to express two alternatives then in time one could be expected to express itself in one branch of the family and the other in another, we would not expect them to remain as multiple-choice genes. Therefore, we would expect multiple-choice genes to be rare in the chromosomes of higher animals.

This gives further expert (if perhaps unintended) support for an intelligent creation where the original life-form is complete and genetically complex.

It is evident that when life-forms first appear on earth they are genetically very complex. This allows them the potential to adapt, diversify and specialise to related families and is as an intelligent creator would work; it is not a possibility for chance creation.

Under the constant pressure of random genetic damage, environmental changes and selection of the fittest, the Crick finding supports (without conflict) the concept of intelligent creation and the fossil record as it is now shown to exist.

An important feature of this improved understanding is that it allows scope for prediction. If, in fact, the DNA chain is maintained while the attached genetic instruction disperses, then we can expect that forms of life that have widely diversified and specialised will show many gaps on the genetic string, while those with minimal change will show few gaps. Unfortunately, if the deceit is deliberate, the mass media is unlikely to publicise and explain such findings nor will funds be directed to such projects. A further crack in convention? We also note that Francis Crick (who is the Nobel Laureate co-discoverer of the DNA structure) had an article called "Seeding the Universe" in OMEGA, March/April, 1982. In this article he discusses the possibility that life may have come to earth from elsewhere in the universe and proposes means whereby we may seed other planets.

It seems unlikely that a famous authority would chance academic back-lash to bring this idea forward unless personally doubtful that life had begun naturally on earth.

Now a piece of evidence of genetic simplification occurring over the kind of time span during which evolution theory would demand an increase in complexity. In a book called "Creation still goes on" by F.L. Boschke, (attempting to support the evolution theory of course) we are told of the discovery that Bacillus circulans, a tiny form of life that has been resilient enough to survive 300 MILLION years of suspended animation in rock salts, has been found (after that period of time) to be more genetically complex than its present-day natural descendants.

Although it may not be TOTALLY impossible for a chance rearrangement of genetic material to create a new and useful gene once a complex genetic structure has become available, we don't know that it has ever happened. What we do know is that it couldn't happen often enough to account for any useful biological progress and can, in no way, account for the creation of life in the first place. choice10.htm

.../Next Page

.../Back to Contents Page