What Does Aadenopathy Mean On The Liver

Science and Religion: Pursuing the same goal?


The debate between science and religion are as old as science and the same religion. Pretending to have a special revelation of God, religion often has soared to dizzying heights and at times in his search for truth and understanding of the mysteries of life, opposed to science. Science, pretending to be humble when dealing only with what can be perceived through the senses, it has also become arrogant in some cases, denying any role or even religious faith value on human life.

and furious battle continues. However, as we approach the dawn of a new millennium, is there any chance that the subject of faith and faith in the art may come to have a contact point? What are the goals of Christianity and science? Can we conceive of common goals for both? Where lies the final answer to human questions?

But first, let me introduce myself. I am a practicing Adventist Christian, I support the biblical revelation of the truth and I am especially interested in the prophecies. I am also a professional astronomer, with a strong interest in cosmology, its order and beauty. My faith and my profession I have presented insurmountable problems. With this conviction, the board questions above.

does

Christianity is Christian faith is grounded in God as revealed in the Bible. It states that God created human beings (Genesis 1:26, 27; 2:18, 21-23), which instructed them about how they should live (Exodus 20:1-17, Micah 6:8; Matthew 22:36-40), that saves them from their sinful situation (Ezekiel 36:26, 27, Romans 7:24, 25; Ephesians 5:25-27), and promises them a future of satisfaction and eternal happiness (John 14:1-3, Revelation 21, 22).

Although the Bible was written by humans, she says that God is their true author (2 Timothy 3:16, 17). This God invites us to know Him (John 17:3). The main purpose of the Word of God is allowing us to bring such a special relationship that promotes the full development potential.

John addresses this issue by linking it to other aspects of our relationship with Him (1 John 2:13, 14). First, know God as one "who is from the beginning"-the Creator *. Second, to relate to God as those who "have overcome the evil"-a victory based on the revelation of God through His Son Jesus Christ (1 John 5:4, 5) -.

The Bible invites us to have faith in God as Creator and Redeemer, the kind of faith without which it may please Him (Hebrews 11:6).

science does is

First science tries to satisfy human curiosity. God created us with an innate desire to investigate and find out. Consider astronomy, for example, that seeks to answer questions that both men and women have made since they began to look to the sky. What are the stars? How did? Do they affect our existence here on earth? But apart from satisfying our natural curiosity, science also want to investigate and to subjugate nature for the benefit of mankind, which is a strong argument for scientific research.

When God told Adam and Eve were "dominion" over creation (Genesis 1:26), was with the clear idea that they should take responsibility for the welfare of the atmospheric environment rich mineral, vegetable and animal. In fact, God put human beings in the Garden of Eden to tend and keep it "(Genesis 2:15). Therefore, from the principle should be a responsible and beneficial interaction between humans and nature.

The nature and faith

If Christianity emphasizes the need to believe, and science says the need to understand the world around us, is there any link between faith and nature? I think so, and to discover we should look at the two books of God, divine revelation through the Word of God and nature. When David said: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament proclaims his handiwork" (Psalm 19:1), was not merely expressing the poetry that flowed from his musical heart. He was also expressing a fundamental concept of biblical concept: you can not see the wonders of nature without giving testimony of their faith in God. Because God's glory is its 1 , we understand that this passage says, "Nature says the character of God."

However, it could be a problem. For Adam and Eve may have been relatively easy to understand God as they walked through the Garden of Eden perfect, but for their children must have been much more difficult to have the same clear understanding, as they grew amid "thistles and thorns and pain and tears. God's work in nature is so damaged due to the appearance of sin that the reflection of his character in nature can not be discerned so clearly as before entry of evil. Immediately this begs a question: sin "affected only the Earth, the human home, or at our space environment?

Before the space to become the subject of questions and scientific research, Christians generally believed that humans would never to travel into space and thereby pollute the environment beyond the sin. He took Psalm 115:16 ("The heavens are the heavens of the LORD, and has given the earth to the sons of men") so quite literally giving it precisely that meaning. Today we know more, we left our footprints on the moon and the vastness of space has come under continued study of science. Thus, one can legitimately ask, is there a place created by God where sin has not entered or in which it has not felt its influence?

Although we need not speculate about what is unknown or has not been revealed, we have this assurance: "The land ruined and tainted by sin, merely reflects dimly the Creator's glory. It is true that his object lessons have not disappeared. On each page of the large volume of His created works may still notice the writing of his hand. Nature still speaks of its Creator. However, these revelations are partial and imperfect. " 2 "The skies may be for them (youth) a study book, which they can learn lessons of great interest. The moon and the stars may be his companions, speaking of the love of God in the most eloquent language. " 3 Thus, the nature of God continues to speak. And of course we have the written word which proclaims the nature and glory of God.

Many believe the two books of God refer to different issues. A book tells us about nature while the other tells of his Maker. However, although the two books are different, both are examples of how God communicates with us. Through one talks about his works, which is called general revelation of nature. In the other, we talks about himself which is known as special revelation.

General revelation answer questions about the physical universe: How does nature? How does one do with the other? How do you understand the order and rhythm, chaos and decay, the space and time? You can answer these questions by observing the natural world and the use of scientific methods.

special revelation answer questions that go beyond the physical world: Why is nature the state it is? What is the meaning and purpose of life? Should we be accountable to a higher being? How do we relate to God? How do you solve the problem of sin and its destructive power? Is there life after death? The answers to these questions presuppose the existence of a power or a higher being, and are outside the scope of natural science. That higher power, whom we call God has revealed through the Bible. There you can find answers to some of the great concerns of life.

Since both nature the Bible have the same author who does not lie nor can it (Numbers 23:19, Titus 1:2), the responses obtained from the Bible can not be in contradiction with those obtained on the nature of the topics covered both books. This does not mean that students of nature and students of the Bible always agree on the interpretation of information. The Bible makes it clear that it can be understood by those with spiritual discernment, that is, those that take into account in studying the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:6-16). This truth had been proclaimed in the Old Testament and appears to extend the condition of spirituality beyond Bible study to the investigation of nature. Therefore, the knowledge of God and the recognition of their existence and wisdom are needed to obtain a deeper understanding of the problems posed by nature.

we strive to know God by studying his two books, we must remember that we can not get satisfactory answers through the study of one and neglect the other. Albert Einstein understood this complementary principle when he said: "Science without religion is lame, and religion without science is blind. " 4

common goals of science and Christianity

However, we need not be lame or blind. Are there common goals on which they can match the Christian faith and science and common projects in which they can ship? If the nature and the Bible are two ways that God has chosen to communicate important information, and if these two books can help us in our search for companies in the physical and spiritual, then why is not logical that both science and the Bible reason and faith must play a role in our spiritual and intellectual life? In other words, should not our origin, purpose and future to be informed and guided by what they reveal of faith and reason?

consider the appeal of Isaiah: "Lift up your eyes on high, and behold who hath created these things, he brings out their army calls them all by name, no miss, such is the greatness of his strength, and power your domain "(Isaiah 40:26). Here we have an invitation from God to study his works expressed in the planets, stars and galaxies. Why should we make such a study? First, to obtain personal knowledge of God. Secondly, to find that our Creator is great in power and that is eternal. Third, to discover why God created this great universe. God does not want us all to be astronomers, but wants us to study and meditate on your wonderful creation. The study of this land as the study of extraterrestrial allow us to know not only the greatness of God but also the responsibility of being His stewards.

This raises important questions. Stewardship Is the only reason for scientific research or we have additional reasons? Both the scientific study of the physical universe as a study with a more spiritual approach in order to meet his Maker should be closely linked. Therefore, I regret that there is any separation between these two disciplines.

Note the recent trend in cosmology. About seventy years ago, cosmology was embarked in a direction that has led to a seemingly satisfactory physical explanation of the origin of the universe. Although there are many details still need to understand the Big Bang model of the origin of the universe has been accepted by most scientists as a framework within which it is hoped that further progress can be made. 5 collaboration between astrophysics, particle physics and theoretical physics has led to an idea about the first moments of the universe's existence. However, it has also led to the recognition that there is a barrier in time beyond which even our best theories can not penetrate. The first microseconds of the universe remains veiled in mystery. Moreover, cosmologists have come to recognize that many aspects of the universe require precise tuning of initial conditions and values \u200b\u200bof physical constants. This barrier of time and fine tuning have led to a renewed interest in the old questions about the design of the universe, the designer can, and what happened in that first split second or even earlier.

While scientific research has provided many answers about the workings of nature, also have raised deeper questions. Many of them are related to our deepest concerns about life, its origin, its purpose and its future. Then, it is reasonable that some scientists suggest that only God can give answers to these questions. 6 Others, however, have refused to admit that God plays a role in it, hoping that the continued progress of science ever answer any troubling questions. Still others argue that the deepest questions are outside the scope of natural science and is best left to philosophers and theologians. Let these three attitudes. Three

attitudes about the unanswered questions

First, God is the answer to all our questions, communicating the truth either by means of the Bible or through the church . While for many Christians this may seem an appealing option, we perceive the dangers that lie in it. Imagine a person of the S XVI can not understand why the planets revolve around the sun. Most scientists and theologians taught that time, supposedly based on divine revelation in Scripture, that the Earth is the center of our planetary system. However, a century later, Isaac Newton explained this mystery by the law of gravity. The advancement of science has made numerous occasions where we had to leave earlier claims of direct and miraculous God. This approach to "God of the gaps" that seeks to assign all unexplained phenomena of the universe is wrong and runs the risk of making this "God" will eventually become unnecessary. Those who believe that God plays an active role in our universe do so because they found much evidence of intelligent design and established a personal relationship with him.

Second, science provides the answer to all our questions . Because to recent scientific progress, some believe that, if given enough time, science could answer all our questions. They ignore the obvious limitations of science and its tentative nature. Moreover, science can best respond to the questions of "how" rather than the "why." God created us as individuals inquisitive, has chosen to disclose or make available to us some things and not others. (See Deuteronomy 29:29.) Those that have been disclosed are vital to our relationship with him. When we go to his eternal presence, we can do all those other questions whose answers are shrouded in mystery today, which does not give us permission to be lazy or discouraged in our scientific activities. Rather, it should lead us to recognize that there are many aspects of God and his creation that are still hidden to us.

Thirdly, philosophy and theology can answer our questions . Depending on the mental constitution of each of us, we get to choose between philosophy (metaphysics) and theology or try to combine them in some way to find answers to questions that go beyond the scientific. Christians realize that while these disciplines are based on logic and human reasoning, never reach the target while not taking into account the existence and power of the Creator of all things. This is precisely the weakness of the entire non-Christian philosophy and theology.

However, to Christian theology can not answer all questions. As our understanding of natural phenomena is hindered by the barriers of space, time and understanding, our interpretation of the word is imperfect. In addition, we are finite creatures whose mental capacity can not fully understand the mind of the Creator. (See Isaiah 55:8, 9, Romans 11:33.)

Conclusion

human curiosity is not limited only to the physical aspects of nature. It has also led to deeper questions are formulated about the origin, purpose and destiny of human beings. God's intention in creating the universe and populate it with intelligent creatures was not just give us many interesting fields of study, but also lead to him as the Creator and, through that, lead to an understanding depths of our existence depends entirely on him.

One of the most successful perversion of Satan is that he has succeeded in separating science from religion, and through this process has corrupted our understanding of our Creator and his saving relationship to us. In this way, bereft of Christianity philosophy can not answer tough questions because it ignores the One who is the answer. Nor can the theology itself answer these questions if it limits itself to the mere study of special revelation. And science alone can not provide the necessary responses especially if you ignore the legitimate role of God as Creator. Only when science, theology and Christian philosophy, giving priority to collaborate the revealed Word of God, the Bible come to get satisfactory answers. When we recognize God's omniscience and our limitations, and express our respect and love for him, we will fulfill its original purpose in inviting us to contemplate the power of creation and salvation.

Mart de Groot (Ph.D., University of Utrecht)

Fix A Rip On Mock Leathar Couch

Is there design in nature?


You go for a walk and see a stick leaning against a tree. Look at the stick and then the tree. From your observation, can you conclude that you're looking at evidence of intelligent activity? Maybe not. Often the branches break and fall times leaning against the tree. Such an event requires no special explanation. Of course, a person could have placed the stick against the tree with a purpose, but it is not necessary to use that explanation if a more "natural."

But suppose you find three rods supported each other so that if any of them sucrase the other two would fall the ground. This "tripod" could not be the result of a gradual accumulation of sticks, the three must have been placed simultaneously. Is it reasonable to assume that this happened by chance? The probability of such an event happens by itself is ridiculously low. An intelligent person should have fixed the poles with a purpose that may be obvious or not.

The key to understanding design

What distinguishes intelligent design "tripod" of the rod propped against the tree? Perhaps two characteristics: complexity and functional interdependence. The complexity of the "tripod" is represented by its three parts. Functional interdependence is evident in the fact that you can not remove any of them without destroying the tripod. The best interpretation of a structure that is composed of three or more elements that must be compared simultaneously is that it is the result of intelligent design. Although it can always be argued that this structure could have originated by chance, such an interpretation would require straining credulity of most people.

Can an argument may be reasonably extended to nature? If so, do we see in it evidence of intelligent design?

The design argument

For many centuries the idea that nature is the result of intelligent design was accepted without hesitation or controversy. The Scriptures claim that you can see God in nature. As an example, listen to the psalmist: "O Lord, our Lord, how excellent is thy name in all the earth ... When I consider Your heavens, the work of your fingers ... I say: What is man that You are mindful of him? "(Ps. 8:1, 3, 4). Paul was presented with great force in Romans 1:19, 20 which argues that the evidence of God in nature is so clear that no excuse for denying their existence, power and sovereignty. For many authors, the evidence of design in nature points to God the Creator of the Bible. William Paley is an example of this.

Paley and the argument of the invention . 1 Paley argued that nature is full of features that show evidence of design. He called them "inventions", and compared with the devices or man-made machines. The argument Paley can be stated as follows: The existence of traits of living organisms that function as mechanical devices to achieve some purpose, are evidence that they were created by a Designer.

The Paley's famous illustration is that of a clock. Suppose you have never seen a clock, and you find one. Would not it be obvious to think that the clock was designed and built with a purpose, even if you did not know what it is? In the same way many features of living organisms function as machines. If we recognize the work of a designer when looking devices mechanics, we can also admit that there is a designer when we observe similar features in living organisms. According to Paley, nature exhibits properties of a design, which leads us to recognize the God of nature.

Charles Darwin and the argument from design. Charles Darwin Paley opposed from the beginning. Darwin admitted that while he "loved" Paley's arguments, he could not blame God for designing all the evil in nature. 2 Darwin suggested that God was so far removed from nature that did not involve nor was responsible for the state of it. In fact, Darwin argued that nature was not designed and therefore could not point to a designer. He suggested that natural processes alone were sufficient to explain all the features of adaptation of living organisms through the process of natural selection. Apparently, Darwin preferred to have a good God at a distance, that close to us and bad. Probably most of us would agree. But was it a valid argument of Darwin's natural selection? Darwin himself identified

a method by which one could disprove his theory. In Chapter 6 of his book the Origin of Species , 3 said: "If you could prove the existence of any complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would fall apart completely" .

Darwin said he could find no such case, although others said the opposite.

Arguments

design clearly the argument from design is not valid if nature was not designed. Darwin changed the focus of the debate to discuss whether nature really intended. Thus, our interest centers on the argument in favor of design.

The argument of "irreducible complexity." Professor Michael Behe \u200b\u200bof Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, United States, is one of today's leaders for design. 4 He bases his argument on what he calls "irreducible complexity." As an illustration, using a common trap for mice, consisting of a platform, a hook to the bait a lever, a "guillotine", a spring and some staples. The parts of the trap operate together to perform a function: to hunt mice. Let's say the trap is an organ that has evolved from a simpler ancestor structure. What would the ancient structure and what role would you have? How can a mousetrap simplified and yet retain its function? Imagine that we remove any of the components of the trap, the resulting structure would have no function. The mousetrap is irreducibly complex. If you could a similar example among living organisms, Darwin's theory is "fall apart completely." According to Behe, the cilia are one such example.

A cilium is a hair-like structure that sways in a fluid medium and provides a method for pushing in some unicellular organisms. Cilia are also present on our respiratory system and their movements help to remove particles from the lungs. It takes at least three parts to an active movement: a moving part, a link to a power source and an "anchor" to control the mobile. In the case of a cilium, the insert is made of tubulin molecules, energy is supplied through the activities of dynein molecules, and parts of the cilia are linked by nexin molecules. If any of them, the cilium would have no function. Thus, the cilium appears to be a complex irreducible.

As expected, those who are philosophically committed to the evolution refuse to accept the argument of irreducible complexity. However, this rejection has a philosophical, not empirical, as evidenced the total absence of demonstrations in the evolutionary claims.

The argument from improbability. Some circumstances seem so unexpected that one suspects it must have involved something more than chance. Most scientists are willing to randomly assign an outcome if it can be expected to occur five times in a hundred trials. Some scientists probabilidd decrease is still a thousand, depending on the nature of the event. But there are limits to what one might reasonably accept as a result of chance. If the probability of an event is too low, it is reasonable did not occur as a result of chance. If the acontecimniento also seems to have a purpose, it is reasonable to assume that the event was guided by an intelligent mind.

Darwin admitted that "shudder" when thinking about the problem of the evolution of the human eye. He tried to explain the evolution of the eye, pointing to a variety of less complex eyes in other animals, and suggesting that they may represent stages through which he could develop a more complex eye. However, it is unclear whether managed to convince himself. Eye evolution would require a complicated series of unlikely events, so most people would consider highly unlikely that could happen without a designer. 5

The mystery pitch

Many arguments for design based on the lack of understanding of a particular process. Before you understand the mechanism of blood circulation, one might have felt tempted to argue that the circulation of blood was an incomprehensible mystery, and this in itself was evidence of the operation of a superior intellect. When it was discovered the mechanism of movement problems arose, since they apparently did not need God. Similar examples led to regard with suspicion any argument for design. Such "arguments of the mystery" containing two features: the ignorance of the mechanism of a specific phenomenon and the assertion that the phenomenon is a mystery beyond our comprehension. This raises the argument of the "god of the gaps."

The argument of irreducible complexity should be contrasted with the argument of the mystery. The first is based on two fundamental characteristics: the system must have identified function, and system components must be known and identified, which classifies it as an argument from knowledge and that is completely different from the argument of the mystery. Examples

design in nature

can be described many examples of design in nature, but we note here only a few.

The existence of the universe. 6 The existence of the universe depends on a precise combination of physical constants finely balanced. If any of them were different, the universe could not exist. For example, if the electromagnetic force were slightly higher, atomic nuclei would not exist. Other physical constants include the value of the gravitational constant and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

The adequacy of the conditions for sustaining life on earth. 7 Earth differs from other planets and the conditions that allow life to exist there. If any of them, life as we know, does not exist on earth. For example, the atmospheric composition is unique among planets in our solar system.

The existence of life. Life requires proteins and nucleic acids. None of these materials is where there is no life. Both must be present so that life may exist. For example, protein production requires the presence of both protein enzymes and nucleic acids.

Certain groups of organisms have unique genes. The various groups of organisms have different genes, which are not found in other groups. The new genes require new information, but it seems very unlikely that alone can generate new information by random processes, even if you start with an extra copy of a gene. Further studies are needed to help clarify this point.

human mind. The human mind appears to be extremely complex, far above what it would take for natural selection. The mechanism for certain types of mental activities seems beyond our comprehension. For example, science has no good explanation for the self-consciousness, or the capacity for language and abstract thinking.

design

Other examples include the existence of the code genetic process of the production of proteins in living cells, the process of nucleic acid production in the cells, the senses, the regulation of genes, the complex chemical processes of photosynthesis and sex, among others. While there has been some speculation about how these features could arise without intelligent design, the proposed process seems so improbable that intelligent design seems to be the most plausible to many scholars.

design arguments against

have raised several objections against the argument from design. Briefly consider four types:

Pseudo design. 8 guidelines can be established as a result of natural processes, without invoking an intelligent designer. For example, a snowflake has a very intricate structure, but no one suggests that God spoke specifically to create those designs. Rather, the pattern can be explained in terms of physical and molecular properties. Complex systems, nonlinear, often exhibit unexpected properties "emerge" naturally without any element of intelligence. However, the complexity of the required initial conditions, such as the necessary existence of a computer, seem dependent on a designer.

Natural selection can be considered a pseudo argument type design. If organisms can be modified by natural processes to suit your environment, no need to suggest that God intervened in particular to design. A serious weakness of this argument is that it presupposes the existence of the structure should be modified. Recent advances in molecular biology have revealed the existence of complex interdependent levels well above expectations of those who developed the theory of evolution. The problem of the origins of biological structures seems to provide a powerful argument for design.

defective design. 9 Many features of nature seem to have flaws. Some argue that an intelligent creator would have done a better job of designing the nature. Some examples of alleged defective design include the "thumb" of the giant panda and the structural arrangement of the retina of the eyes of vertebrates. However, nobody has shown that these structures do not function well eliminating the basis of the argument. Moreover, the imperfections can be expected in a world that, although it was designed by God, has been ruined by Satan. Design

superimposed. 10 Humans like to organize the observations in schemes, which may be artificial. An example would be to see familiar shapes in the clouds, there is nothing real that requires an explanation, except perhaps to wonder why people do it. Most scientists reject this argument, since the practice of science depends on the existence of actual schemes to be be explained. All observers agree that nature, at least, seems to have been designed.

bad design. 11 Many features of organisms seem "designed" to kill or to cause pain or disease. The malaria parasite is one example. Does not seem right to blame God for the design of the causes of illness and death. On the other hand, if God did not design the "bad" things of nature, why argue that designed the "good" things the same? The presence of evil in nature not refute the argument for design, but may provoke questions about the nature or character of the designer. The biblical explanation is that this world is the battleground between two designers: a Creator and a corruptor. The result is that nature is sending confusing signals, are present in it both good and evil. 12

Conclusion

The "design argument" was generally ignored in the century after Darwin, in part because knowledge of living systems were so incomplete that the gaps only could be filled with imagination. As more biological knowledge has emerged the argument from design and is expressed in more sophisticated ways, such as the argument of "irreducible complexity." The existence of certain characteristics that could not survive in intermediate stages is evidence of a Designer. So is that of a designer God who created, through a special presentation creation, and not a continuous process as indicated by the evolution. The argument of irreducible complexity is an argument that supports an interventionist creation and discontinuous.

According to Paul in his letter to the Romans, nature has been clearly designed, but not everyone is ready to recognize the Designer. Nature can be properly understood only in light of special revelation of God in Scripture. Guided by the Bible, we can join with the Psalmist in praise of the Creator: "The heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows his handiwork ... All across the land came his voice, and to the end of the world their words "(Ps. 19:1, 4).

L. James Gibson (Ph.D., LLU, director of the Geoscience Research Institute)

Notes and references

1. W. Paley, Natural Theology (Houston: St. Thomas Books, 1972. Reprint ed., 1802.) Paley's argument has been recently reviewed by JT Baldwin: "God and the World: William Paley's Argument From Perfection Tradition: A Continuing Influence, "Harvard Theological Review , 1985, pp. 109-120.

2. See NC Gillespie, Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation (University of Chicago Press, 1979), Chapter 7. For example, Darwin said he I could not believe in a God who made cats to play with mice, or small parasitic wasps designed to devour the entrails of the tracks.

3. Charles Darwin, The Origins of Species , 6th. ed. (New York: Penguin Books, 1958).

4. MJ Behe, Darwin's Black Box (New York: The Free Press, 1996).

5. For a recent analysis of the evolution of the eye and design, see Nilsson and S. Pelger, "A Pessimistic Estimate of the Time Required for and Eye to Evolve, "Proceedings, Royal Society of London, 1994, B 256:53-58. One response to this presentation is that of JT Baldwin, "The Argument From Sufficient Initial System Organization as a Continuing Challenge to the Darwinian Transitional Rate and Method of Evolution," Christian Scholar's Review 24 (1995), pp. 423-443.

6. To further analyze this point, see JD Barrow and FJ Tiples, The Anthropic Cosmological Principle (New York: Oxford University Press, 1986).

7. For a discussion of the topic at the grassroots level, from a non-Christian perspective and somewhat mystical, see JE Lovelock, Gaia: A New Look at Life on Earth (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987), for a more conventional, see RED Clark: The Universe: Plan or Accident? (Philadelphia: Muhlenberg Press, 1961).

8. To end an argument like this, see R. Deaconess: The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton and Co., 1986). Other examples include the argument of emergent complexity, such as S. Kauffman: The Origin of Order (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993). An evaluation of Kauffman's book appears in J. Horgan, "From Complexity to Perplexity", Scientific American 272:6 (1995), pp. 104-109.

9. An example of this argument appears in SJ Gould: The Panda's Thumb (New York: Norton and Co., 1980).

10. A classic presentation of this argument is D. Hume: Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1799), (New York: Penguin Books, 1990).

11. For example, see DL Hull, "The God of the Galapagos" Nature 352 (1991), pp. 485-486. See also Chapter 8 in PJ Bowler: Evolution: The History of an Idea (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1984).

12. For a biblical approach to this problem, see John T. Baldwin: "God, the sparrow and the emerald boa, College and University Dialogue 8:3 (1996), pp. 5-8.-The writing.

Installing Flooring Under Sliding Closet Doors

is confirmed that the DNA similarity of human / chimpanzee is just a myth


convention holds that humans and chimpanzees we differ very little in our DNA. However, there are new evidence to suggest that the differences could be much more drastic . The mutations that cause insertions and deletions in DNA are those that produce the genetic difference between the two species, but they are not normally included in estimates of diversity.

also there are areas with large similarities that are often affected by selective restrictions. Every time there are more functions to the so-called "junk DNA" which indicates that the similarities in this type of DNA are not necessarily the result of common ancestry.

Future research will help to understand this information so important in the debate about origins.

Creationists have long maintained that the similarities between the DNA of man and chimpanzee are not as many as believed. A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) could help confirm this.

There is a widespread view according to which

"the common chimpanzee (Pan troglodytes) is our closest relative. Its gene sequence is almost identical (98.8%) to ours, and almost 6 million years shared a common ancestor. " 1

The assumption that humans split from chimpanzees so long also forms the basis for the mitochondrial clock, 2

" which continues to be widely used for 'dating' of human evolution and population movements, ancient and modern. " 3

In the popular book, Genome (Genome) , Matt Ridley says

"A part of the merger of chromosomes 2, the visible differences between chromosomes of chimpanzees and humans are few and small: in thirteen chromosomes there is any difference. If you select at random any "paragraph" in the human genome, found that few "letters" are different: an average of less than two percent. We are approximately ninety-eight percent of chimpanzees, and they are in a limit insurance trust, ninety-eight percent of human beings. If this does not sink your self-esteem, think that chimpanzees are only ninety-seven percent gorillas in the same way humans are ninety-seven percent gorillas. In other words, we become more like chimpanzees than chimpanzees to gorillas. "

A creationist response to these arguments concerning the similarities between humans and chimpanzees is that

" DNA of chimpanzees is far from fully encoded so that a comparison can be made effective. " 5

addition, such testing can also be explained (indeed, predict) easily by using the concept of a common designer:

"Since the DNA encoding the structures and biochemical molecules, we should expect similar creatures DNA had a more similar. Monkeys and humans are mammals, with similar forms, therefore, both have similar DNA. We should expect that humans have more similarities with other mammals, such as pork, rather than a reptile, as the rattlesnake. And it is. Humans are very different from yeast, but have some biochemical common. Therefore, we expect that human DNA is more than the DNA of the yeast DNA of the monkey. " 6

In a recent article, 7 David A. DeWitt, commented on an investigation which found that both species are only 95% identical-by considering insertions and deletions, " 8 showing that the estimate of the differences depend mainly on the type of DNA that is compared. Reference is made to differences between humans and chimpanzees that are difficult to quantify when assessing the sequence divergence (ie, differences between the bases of humans and chimpanzees).

Some of these differences include shorter telomeres in humans, one chimpanzee genome 10% larger, and large differences in chromosomes 4, 9, 12 and Y chromosome, to name a few. Indeed, estimates of the similarities

"does not adequately represent the subtle changes in genome organization." 9

consider do the gaps in the DNA

Previous estimates of the divergence of the sequences were exclusively focused on the substitutions of DNA bases, ie a base (or "letter" of DNA: A, T, C or G) is replaced by another. The new estimate, which gives a much lower sequence similarity, also considers insertions and deletions, called indels, (which occur when a base is added or subtracted, often resulting in what is known as a frameshift mutation or frameshift gap ), apart from the substitutions of the bases. The author of this research, Roy J. Britten said:

"I consider it appropriate to take into account the total distances of the gaps in estimating the interspecies divergence. In fact, these DNA strands are absent in a genome and present in another. In the past, indels have often told regardless of its length, and have been added to the calculation of base substitutions, as this is convenient for phylogenetics. " 8

Their findings give support to the idea that much of the failure of hybridization between the DNA of chimpanzees and humans is the result of DNA loss as a result of indels. Later, Britten Contributed to a review paper which confirmed the initial results. In fact, they found that

"the 5% difference, already published, will surely be an underestimate, possibly more than a factor of 2." 10

recently Anzai et al . published a report in the A tsp of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS) confirms this statement. In this study, we sequenced about half of the region of the MHC (major histocompatibility complex),

"which to date represents the longest continuous sequence in the species [chimpanzees], our closest evolutionary relative. "

This region has been described as part of our genome that" rapidly evolving. " Although it has been argued that the similarity between human and chimpanzee in the MHC is

"so great that the alleles had to arise before the alleged divergence between human and chimpanzee,"

the results of the sequence actually reduced the estimates up to 86.7%. In fact, the real difference between the two species (taking into account indels) is more than 5%, more than a factor of 2. Not only that,

"evolutionists now recognize that the genetic basis of MHC complexes can originate independently";

is, at least some similarities, they can not be attributed to a descent common.

The human genome contains two Class I MHC genes, MICA and MICB, but I lel chimpanzees contains only one gene in this place, the Patr-MIC. According to evolutionary speculation, about 33-44 million years ago a 95-kilobase deletion between two human genes formed the hybrid gene of the chimpanzee, the divergence preceding a long established community of 6 million years. Since the two ends of the chimpanzee gene appear to coincide with the beginning of MICA and MICB end of the human, it may seem logical possibility of a common ancestry. However, even some humans contain a single gene in this region (HLA-B * 4801), very similar to that found in chimpanzees.

The study notes that

"is quite intriguing that a deletion of the same size as regards the same genes and region (MICA / B) occurred at different times in different species of primates. " 12

Still alleges that similar changes in DNA structure can not be attributed to convergence, but due to common ancestry! It is clear that, "failures" like can arise independently in different species (discussed in detail by Woodmorappe 13). The hypothesis that a designer would have created the same structures for the same functions seems a more logical explanation of these data. As stated Woodmorappe , 11 for prevent the similarities of the MHC of different primates were mixed over alleged millions of years, should have been a strong selective pressures, which would further weaken the prospects for the future of evolution.

research Anzai et al. also mentions a few differences between humans and chimpanzees may be the result of genetic changes in MHC genes, including the difference in the handling of infectious agents, such as AIDS, hepatitis B and C, and susceptibility to Plasmodium falciparum . Therefore, the differences observed in these genes can more accurately represent the "true" divergence between the two species than previous estimates.

Although these results are interesting, there has been debate about whether indels should be included in the estimates of divergent sequences. For example, a mutation called translocation can make a separate DNA segment of a chromosome and inserted into another. The original research Britten briefly discussed these events and found to be frequent. Since indels were defined as the total length of separation "in the genomes, estimates not be able to reflect this type of mutations easily. 14 hope for future research to help understand the changes in genome organization and give us clues about how these changes can be included in the estimates of the similarities between human and chimpanzee

The difference between coding and noncoding DNA

Other studies have given estimates in excess of 98.6%. For example, Wildman et al. 15 compared about 90 kilobases of human DNA to the chimpanzee, and found a similarity of 98.86%, including indels. This is an important test, considering that is directly opposed to the data presented by Britten and Anzai et al. However keep in mind that these estimates using different types of DNA. Wildman team examined DNA encoding only a few genes. Here, the changes do not like (those that affect the protein structure encoded by changing the specific amino acid) are subject to purifying selection. This means they can be selected against if they have any effect on protein function.

Similarly, a study of chromosome 21 (the smallest chromosome in the human genome) found only 3.003 nucleotide differences in more than 400 kilobases. It was shown that "differences in coding, promoter, and the regions of junction of exons and introns were 0.51 ± 0.02%, 0.88 ± 0.03% and 0.85 ± 0.02%, respectively, much lower than presented earlier estimate of 1.23% in genomic regions, 16 with a total of 99.3% similar. Within an evolutionary framework these results confirm that chimpanzees are our closest relatives. However, this finding appears contradict the certainty that there is a high substitution rate on chromosome 21, leading to the conclusion

"... the level of similarity observed in transcribing units in this research is attributed to presence of purifying natural selection used in the most important functional parts of genes, including promoters, coding regions and intronic regions near the exon-intron border. " 16

It Thus, estimates with high similarity index refer particularly to regions of DNA coding that are functionally limited. Research by Britten et al. and Anzai et al. take into account the non-coding DNA, which may be less constrained and therefore more free to accumulate random mutations. Thus, this noncoding DNA serves as a more accurate representation of the true divergence. Naturally, it is reasonable in the context of biblical creation, there is much similarity where the functions of proteins is vital, since the same proteins would be used for a common designer, for the same structures. 6 The logical consequence is that non-coding DNA, being more restricted, probably contains more differences.

Returning to the investigation of Anzai et al. , in which it was discovered that chimpanzees and humans have a 86.7% similarity, see a general trend of greater similarity in coding regions. While

"most non-MHC genes are related to basic cellular functions (homeostatic) that require both interindividual homogeneity as interespecial"

MHC genes

"have to adapt to the microbiological habitat of every species. "

Therefore, purifying selection tends to maintain the structural conservation of other genes as a result of their specific functions. We conclude that an estimate of 86.7%

"may be a more accurate representation of the similarity between the total genome sequences of humans and chimpanzees,"

that previous estimates of 98.6%. Since

"the biggest difference between the sequences of humans and chimpanzees is well attributable to indels, " 12

estimates do not include these mutations ignore a large source of potential differences. Recently, research has found that indels are a major source of variation between humans and chimpanzees. 8, 10, 12 should also be noted that, in contrast with the examples of very similar sequence, sequence divergence in some regions can exceed 20%. 8 As noted De Witt, estimates can be

"misleading because it depends on what you compare. " 7

junk DNA

Introns are regions of DNA in the genome that do not encode a product protein, and therefore assumed to have no function. A consequence of this,

"introns of a specific gene are often compared with those of other organisms where there are differences of base pairs between the sequences, these differences are considered as an indication of degree and time of divergence from the point in which shared a common ancestor. " 17

Indeed, in a creationist context, functional introns should not be very different in humans and chimpanzees, even nonexistent, but the evidence stacked in favor of the introns are not, after all, devoid of function. And the assumption that if it were,

"could end up being a typical story about how Orthodoxy can derail an objective analysis of the facts." 18

Other junk-DNA forms of which clearly stated that lacked function and therefore able to mutate at random, in fact contradict the evolutionary phylogeny, such as pseudogenes, which are common to humans and gorillas, but absent in chimpanzees. The CYP pseudogene present only in chimpanzees, and a substitution in the pseudogene Alpha-1, 3GT that appears in cows, squirrels, monkeys and gorillas. Many common substitutions occur in a non-random, it also weakens the strength of the hypothesis of common ancestry. 13 have published numerous articles explaining the functions of alleged forms of "junk" 13, 17, 19-22 and publications is encouraging to see that evolutionists are waking up and recognizing this fact as important. The preservation of introns

"... suggest doing something indispensable. And really a lot are transcribed into varieties of RNA that play a larger range of functions than biologists imagined. Some scientists now suspect that much of what makes a person "and a species-different from the other, are the variations in the gems that are hidden in our DNA" junk. " 23

Therefore, the similarities of introns fit quite well with the creationist paradigm.

DNA is not everything

I suggest that more rigorous research is needed to review these tests will also find research that inherent differences within the species of chimpanzee. Indels can be clearly seen as the intrinsic differences between species. The DNA sequence is not all that distinguishes the different types of organisms. As Steve Jones said in an appointment Creation:

"We also have 50% of Pooled DNA with bananas, but that does not make us bananas, or from the waist up or waist down. " 24

There is evidence to clearly demonstrate that the" DNA is not everything " eg, mitochondria, ribosomes, the endoplasmic reticulum, and cytosol are transmitted from father to son unchanged (except for possible mutations in the mtDNA). In fact, the gene expression is under the control of the cell. 25

Some animals have undergone huge genetic changes, yet their phenotypes have remained virtually identical. 26 These epigenetic marks

"can dramatically affect the health and characteristics of an organism, some even passed from parents to children," yet these brands do not change the underlying DNA sequence. " 27

These tests give great support to the reproduction of species (Genesis 1:24-25, 1 Corinthians 15:39), because the structures present in the parents are preserved in the offspring.

Conclusion

This is an exciting time to creationists when taking into account the indels, the estimates of the similarities between humans and chimpanzees continue to fall. It is clear that the two species are very similar DNA sequences (many identical structures are present in both, so this was also expected from a creationist model), previous estimates of 98.6% sequence identity may have suffered a huge blow. The investigations to come will surely shed light on the many differences between humans and other animals, and continue to affirm the truth of Genesis .

References 1. Cyranoski, D.: "Almost Human", Nature 418, (6901), 2002. p.910-912

2. Gibbons, A.: "Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock", Science, 279 (5347), 1998. p.28-29.

3. Howell, N., Smejkal, CB, Mackey DA, Chinnery, PF, Turnbull, DM and Herrnstadt, C.: "The pedigree rate of sequence divergence in the human mitochondrial genome: there is a difference between phylogenetic and rhythm pedigree ", American J. Human Genetics 72, (3), 2003. p.659-670.

4. Ridley, M., Genome, HarperCollins Publishers, New York. p.28. 1999.

5. Batten, D.: "Similidud human and chimpanzee DNA: evidence for a relationship evulutiva? Creation 19, (1), 1997. p.21-22.

6. Sarfati, J., "Refuting Evolution 2", Creation Ministries International, Brisbane, Australia, 2002. p. 112-113

7. DeWitt, DA, "> 98% similarity between chimpanzee and man? Not anymore. " TJ 17, (1), 2003. p.8-10.

8. Britten, RJ: "The difference between DNA samples of chimpanzee and human DNA is 5%, counting indels. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci USA. 99, (21), 2002. p.13633-13635.

9. Hacia, JG: "The genome of the apes." Trends in Genetics, 17, (11), 2001. p. 637-645.

10. Britten, RJ, Rowen, L., Williams, J. and Cameron, RA: "Most of the differences between related DNA samples is due to indels. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci USA, 100, (8), 2003. p.4661-4665.

11. Woodmorappe, J.: "Noah's Ark: A feasibility study." Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon. p. 203, 1996.

12. Anzai, T., Shiina, T., Kimura, N., Yanagiya, K., Kohara, S., Shigenari, A., Yamagata, T., Kulski, JK, Naruse, TK, Fujimori, Y., Fukuzumi, Y., Yamazaki, M., Tashiro, H., Iawmoto, C. , Umehara, Y., Imanishi, T., Meyer, A., Ikeo, K., Gojobori, T., Bahram, S. and Inok, H.: Sequence comparison of class I MHC regions of humans and chimpanzees discovered that insertions / deletions are the major cause of genomic divergence. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci USA, 100, (13), 2003. p.7708-7713.

13. Woodmorappe, J.: "Are pseudogenes" errors communes "between the genomes of primates?" TJ, 14, (3), 2000. p.55-71.

14. Cartwright, RA: Personal communication, 8 July 2003.

15. Wildman, DE, Uddin, M., Liu, G., Grossman, LI and Goodman, M.: "Impact on natural selection are forming an identity of 99.4% of detached DNA between humans and chimpanzees, engendered the gender. "Homo. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci USA 100, (12), 2003. p.7181-7188.

16. Shi, J., Xi, H., Wang, Y., Zhang, C., Jiang, Z., Zhang, K., Shen, Y., Jin, L., Zhang, K., Yuan, W., Wang, Y., Lin, J., Hua, Q., Wang, F., Xu, S., Ren, S., Xu, S., Zhao, G., Chen, Z., Jin, L. and Huang, W., "The divergence of genes on human chromosome 21 and other hominids and substitution rate variation between units transcriber." Proc. Nat Acad. Sci USA 100, (14), 2003. p.8331-8336.

17. Walkup, LK: DNA garbage: waste of evolution or God's tools? "TJ, 14, (2), 2000. p.18-30.

18. Mattick JS, quoted in: Gibbs, WW: "The gene invisible: gems among the trash." Scientific American 289, (5), 2003. p.46-53.

19. Batten, D.. "More garbage reclaimed." TJ, 16, (2), 2002. p.8.

20. Woodmorappe, J.: "pseudogenética function: regulation of gene expression." TJ, 17, (1), 2003. p.47-52.

21. Woodmorappe, J.: "pseudogenetica function: more evidence." TJ, 17, (2), 2003. p.15-18.

22. Woodmorappe, J.: "junk DNA defendant." TJ, 18, (1), 2004. p.27-33.

23. Gibbs, WW: "The unseen genome: gems among the trash. Scientific American 289 (5), November 2003. p.46-53,

24. J. Jones, quoted in: Wieland, C., "Humanitas furry?" Creation 24 (3) :10-12, 2002.

25. Williams, AR: "Paradigms that jump." TJ, 17, (1), 2003. p.19-21.

26. Fox, D.: "Countries Wallaby." New Scientist, 175 (2354), 2002. p.32-35.

27. Gibbs, WW: "The unseen genome: beyond DNA." Scientific American 289, (6), 2003. p.106-113.

How Many Calories Are There In Ham And Bean Soup

The evolutionary science and faith

The creationism is a statement scientific, logical and reasonable, "Things are not themselves." The Universe, Life and Man did not come into existence spontaneously and therefore are the work of a Creator. The scientific method provides a steady stream of evidence creationists. No evidence obtained by the scientific method denies setting the contrary. all discoveries scientists, all known scientific laws, all observed phenomena in nature are clear evidence of a Creator. So ... why so many people deny the creation? Because scientific data do not speak for themselves but must be interpreted according to a model . Regarding the origins are essentially two models, the naturalism (the universe has created for himself) and creationism (the universe has been created by an intelligent mind.) Naturalism: Things are created themselves. Naturalism claims that the Universe, Life and Man have come into existence through natural causes such as explosions, electric shocks, random mutations or natural selection. Naturalism is often expressed as a naturalistic scientific theories. A scientific theory is a possible explanation of reality that scientists try to prove experimentally. Some of the theories that naturalists strive to try: Big Bang: The Universe arose from a natural cause, an explosion. Abiogenesis: Life is generated spontaneously by natural causes , from inert matter. Macroevolution: higher species are generated from the lower two natural causes ; mutations (copying errors) and natural selection. naturalism, despite contradicting the logic and reason, is the hegemonic view in most institutions Western education. In many places it has attained the status of dogma (not supported any criticism). Creationism: All creation is the work of a creator Creationism, following the conclusions of the scientific method , is based on observation of natural phenomena and states that no known natural process may have been the cause of the emergence of the Universe, Life and Man. Creationism is based on scientific principles Creationism is based on a scientific basis: The Principles of Causality . 1. / Every phenomenon is due to a cause. 2. / The phenomenon and its cause are closely related. The scientific logic and reason indicate that any structure that reflects intelligent design (eg an aircraft) is the result of an intelligent cause (an aircraft engineer). All scientific studies conclude that the Universe, Life and Man have the characteristics of having been designed by an intelligent creator. Thanks to the scientific method scientific evidence accumulate creating a dizzying speed. Creationism is based on scientific laws Creationism is based on established scientific laws . A scientific law is a universal phenomenon observed experimentally and can be verified by the scientific method. Some laws imposed by scientific method confirming creation are: Laws of Thermodynamics : scientific law: The amount of energy remains constant and the entropy increases with over time. CONSEQUENCES LOGIC: There was a time in the past in which the entropy of the universe was zero, meaning that all power was useful. Law of Biogenesis : LAW SCIENCE: Life comes from life. logical consequence: Life in the universe comes from a living being. Laws Mendel : SCIENTIFIC LAW: The characteristics of a living being is always a recombination of genetic information inherited. logical consequence: Variations within a species are the result of a large number genetic information already present in their ancestors for the spontaneous emergence of new genetic information .. Conclusion Naturalism and Creationism are two opposing interpretations of the natural world . The Naturalism, contrary to established scientific laws, states that the universe Life and Man came by natural causes . Naturalism is expressed in theories not observed with the scientific method (Big Bang, abiogenesis, Macroevolution, etc). Creationism The states that according to the principle of causality , all creation is the work of a Creator. Creationism is based on laws and principles of scientifically observed (Thermodynamics, Biogenesis, Mendel, etc). Creacionismo.net aspires to be a platform of popular science because science, to study the creation shows the glory of the Creator. "The heavens show forth the glory of God." (Psalm 19:1) creacionismo.net Writer