Creation genetics is the biological science of genetics, which was pioneered by a Creation scientist named Gregor Mendel, and how it is still a science supportive of creation.
Why Was Mendel's Research Ignored
Especially in the decade after the publication of Darwin's ORIGIN (1859) the scientific world was eagerly awaiting the discovery of the laws of heredity by some experimental or other scientist(s). After two lectures in 1865, Mendel published his famous Pisum-treatise VERSUCHE ÜBER PFLANZEN-HYBRIDEN in 1866. His work was quoted at least 14 times before 1900, the year of its 'rediscovery'. There were references in such widely distributed works as Focke's DIE PFLANZEN-MISCHLINGE (1881), THE ENCYCLOPAEDIA BRITANNICA (1881) and the CATALOGUE OF SCIENTIFIC PAPERS OF THE ROYAL SOCIETY (1879).The treatise had been sent to the libraries of some 120 institutions including the Royal and Linnean Society of Great Britain. Moreover Mendel had 40 additional reprints at his disposal, many of which he sent to leading biologists of Europe. In fact, professor Niessl (1903 and 1906) emphasized that Mendel's work was "well known" at his time. So in the face of the expectations just mentioned, - why was the discovery of the laws of heredity ignored by most scientists for more than 35 years, until 1900, and by the "true Darwinians" (Mayr) for another 37 years? That is 72 years in all!
The reasons have been hinted at or clearly stated by several pioneers of genetics as de Vries (1901), Bateson (1904, 1909, 1924), Johannsen (1909, 1926) as well as several historians of biology and/or biologists as Niessl (1903, 1906), Richter (1941, 1943), Stern (1962), Lönnig (1982, 1986, 1995), Callender (1988) and Bishop (1996):
All the evidence points to the main reason as follows: Mendel's ideas on heredity and evolution were diametrically opposed to those of Darwin and his followers. Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired characters (and tried to back up his ideas with his pangenesis hypothesis, which even Stebbins called an "unfortunate anomaly") and, most important of course, continuous evolution. Mendel, in contrast, rejected both, the inheritance of acquired characters as well as evolution. The laws discovered by him were understood to be the laws of constant elements for a great but finite variation, not only for culture varieties but also for species in the wild (Mendel 1866, pp. 36, 46, 47). In his short treatise EXPERIMENTS IN PLANT HYBRIDIZATION mentioned above Mendel incessantly speaks of "constant characters", "constant offspring", "constant combinations", "constant forms", "constant law", "a constant species" etc. (in such combinations the adjective "constant" occurs altogether 67 times in the German original paper). He was convinced that the laws of heredity he had discovered corroborated Gärtner's conclusion "that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change". And as Dobzhansky aptly put it: "It is...not a paradox to say that if some one should succeed in inventing a universally applicable, static definition of species, he would cast serious doubts on the validity of the theory of evolution".
It is clear that Mendel's science was recognized, but ignored, because it falsified Darwin's hypothesis. His work was later acknowledged "And hijacked" when a new Neo-Darwinian theory was developed.
|“||The track record of Neo-Darwinism is parasitic on prior Creationist breakthroughs over which Neo-Darwinists now claim sole ownership,and which Creatioists have yet to claim back as their own.||”|
- Main Article: Epigenetics
In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence, hence the name epi- (Greek: επί- over, above) -genetics. These changes may remain through cell divisions for the remainder of the cell's life and may also last for multiple generations. However, there is no change in the underlying DNA sequence of the organism; instead, non-genetic factors cause the organism's genes to behave (or "express themselves") differently.
The discovery of this process has serious implications for creation biology, given the fact that major prototypical changes can occur without the Darwinian process of genetic mutation and natural selection.
Gene Duplication is the central tenet of Neo-Darwinism. There has never been any evidence that genetic novelty can occur from this process. In fact, very recently research was conducted by Joseph Esfandiar Hannon Bozorgmehr (Complexity 22 Dec. 2010) and he could find no example of gene duplication that could be applicable to the theory. He went on to say:
|“|| Gene duplication and subsequent evolutionary divergence certainly adds to the size of the genome and in large measure to its diversity and versatility. However, in all of the examples given above, known evolutionary mechanisms were markedly constrained in their ability to innovate and to create any novel information. This natural limit to biological change can be attributed mostly to the power of purifying selection, which, despite being relaxed in duplicates, is nonetheless ever-present...
- Main Article: Mutation
Mutations are random copying errors that occur during DNA replication. Many examples of adaptation has been attributed to this process by Neo-Darwinians. When these adaptations are empirically studied it turns out to be no change in the DNA, but a change in the protein during protein synthesis. Most of these examples have been observed in bacteria (e.g. Nylon Eating Bacteria, Antibiotic Resistance, etc.) But, some are observed in major vertebrates (e.g.The scabbardfish).
The random nature of these types of adaptations is questionable, since we only observe changes in the protein were the adaptation just happens to work. It would be no less than lighting striking randomly and "BY chance" hitting an enemy every time. No other major changes in the proteins are observed. This is highly indicative of a designed adaptability.
Mutations to DNA are mostly neutral and sometimes deleterious, but evolutionists are yet to empirically demonstrate a truly novel beneficial mutation attributed solely to mutations. Deleterious mutations accumulate and cause the extinction of species in a process known as Muller's Ratchet, which cast serious doubt on the ability of Natural Selection to weed out deleterious mutations from the genome.
- Main Article: Vestigial organ
Vestigial organs are claimed by Evolutionists to be evidence of common descent. The hundreds of claimed vestigial organs have been found to have a function, which falsifies their original hypothesis. Here I present evidence that recessive traits in the fossil record and living species reaffirms the biblical account. Before the flood all animals were herbivorous and the fossil record should support the hypothesis.
Bird fossils are found with teeth, which would be necessary for them to chew plant matter. Evolutionists claim that the teeth provide evidence of common ancestry from therapod dinosaurs. A closer look at the evidence reveals that their teeth are not homologous.
The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have non-serrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.
It stands to reason that the teeth of birds became recessive vestiges after changing their diet.
Another example is an extinction experiment on lizards. In 1971, biologists moved five adult pairs of Italian wall lizards from their home island of Pod Kopiste, in the South Adriatic Sea, to the neighboring island of Pod Mrcaru. To their surprise, the lizards not only survived, but underwent incredibly rapid morphological changes. Among those changes were cecal valves, designed to slow the passage of food by creating fermentation chambers in the gut, where microbes can break down the difficult to digest portion of plants. These types of genetic vestiges are predicted by the Creation model if all animals were herbivores before the flood of Noah. It also demonstrates that the morphological variation of these animals can change within decades instead of millions of years predicted by Evolutionists.
- Steve Fuller,Dissent over Descent Intelligent Desings Challenge To Darwinism,2008 P.253