Read the nature.com report. Read the Washington Post report.
Scientists are studying the genome of a duck-billed platypus and confirming what we already knew--this strange animal, officially classified as a mammal, has definite reptilian and avian features as well.
It certainly appears as if God, foreseeing the rise of Darwinism, created the platypus as a joke on evolutionary scientists. They seem to be a bit confused. In the Nature article, the platypus is described as being at the end of an evolutionary branch, an evolutionary dead-end. However, the Washington Post article describes platypuses as “transitional creatures on the road from egg laying to internal gestation.”
If they are transitional creatures, one can see six different possible transitional scenarios: mammal to reptile, reptile to mammal, mammal to bird, bird to mammal, bird to reptile, reptile to bird. Is there evidence for any one of the scenarios better than that for any other? If the platypus is at a dead end, why did it stop evolving? Did it have difficulty making up its mind what it wanted to become?
Actually, there is no evidence the platypus ever looked any different from what it looks like today. Its mammalian, reptilian, and avian features are all useful and necessary for its health and survival. It has no useless appendages or organs.
If the platypus is seen in the light of evolutionary theory, a person can understand why the creature could lead one scientist to call evolution “idiosyncratic.” Perhaps the theory is so idiosyncratic that more scientists should be questioning its relevance.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
WALKING ON ALL FOURS. Turkish scientist who studied the human quadrupeds gets some respect for his “reverse evolution” theory.
Read the World Science article.
Even most evolutionary scientists are skeptical of the claim that these quadruped humans are returning to their apelike past though “reverse evolution.” But all scientists, creationists included, recognize that mutations, which are usually harmful, and a loss of information in genes, can lead to reverses. An example would be the blind cave fish. This is not an example of macro-evolution or macro reverse evolution, of course, but could be an example of micro-evolution, a concept that creationist scientists also accept. My question is--has anyone tried to get the Turkish family members to walk upright?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCANNING YOUR GENOME. Can your genes really predict your future?
Read the Newsweek article.
The consensus at present seems to be that genome scans, up to a thousand dollars a crack, are still too unreliable. They can unnecessarily scare a person, on the one hand, or provide a false sense of security on the other. But if and when the technique is perfected, then what? These scans might be seen as not much different from colonoscopies or blood tests or many other tests which could uncover a treatable problem. Then a Christian may decide to invest in such a procedure if helpful in extending the life of his “temple” and his life of service to the Lord. What do you think?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
STARLIGHT AND TIME. DVD.
The best attempt we've seen to try to explain the creationist cosmology of Dr. Russell Humphreys. He explains how Einstein's theory of relativity allows for time to run much faster in deep space compared to time on Earth. This could allow for light from stars billions of light years away to be seen on Earth less than 6,000 years after Creation. 2001. 22 minutes.
Join LSI and rent this DVD for $3.
0 comments:
Post a Comment