Genomics

Jeff Tomkins was a faculty member of Clemson, was reviewer of mainstream biology journals, and ran Clemson’s Genomics Institute. Like biologist Robert Carter, he’s given up a promising career in secular academia and research to devote himself to resisting the falsehoods in evolutionary biology. I wrote about his presentation at ICC 2013: Geneticist Jeff Tomkins vs. Evolutionary biologist who got laughed off stage. His website is: http://designed-dna.org/ He also wrote a pro-ID book for creationists. which normally retails at $32, but which can be purchased at a deep discount here: The Design and Complexity of the Cell The functions within the cells of our bodies are foundational to our existence. Understanding these functions has made the environment and the processes Read More ›

A visual artist and a Ph.D. in computational genomics have gotten together to predict what we mere human mortals will look like in, say, 100,000 years. Given the prediction, I for one am glad I won’t be around to see it actually happen. The current design appeals to me much more. But maybe others will feel differently.

There is no better title for this post than the very title some Darwinists chose for themselves: On the immortality of television sets: “function” in the human genome according to the evolution-free gospel of ENCODE Darwinists are still struggling to come to terms with the idea, from the ENCODE project, that 80% of the genome is functional. Whatever Dawkins now says, according to their model, only about 10% should be subject to natural selection, leaving 70% unexplained. This cannot be! Apparently, ENCODE are to be criticised for using an ‘evolution-free’ definition of function. Yep, you heard that right. You thought that function was function was function, but oh no, you must use a evolution-y definition or you will not get the Read More ›

Geneticist Gerald R. Crabtree reviews evidence showing genomic mutations are degrading the 2000 to 5000 genes needed for our intellectual and emotional function:

New developments in genetics, anthropology, and neurobiology predict that a very large number of genes underlie our intellectual and emotional abilities, making these abilities genetically surprisingly fragile. . . . Read More ›

At PhysOrg they have a blurb about a paper showing that an organism that is 99.99% (!!) identical has, nevertheless, found a way of dealing with the presence of Uranium in completely different ways. Absolutely fascinating! Obviously we’re dealing with two very different environments—one is in a volcanic spring, and the other is atop a pile of uranium waste apparently. One is liquid-based, the other land-based. What I suspect has happened—keeping Behe’s Edge of Evolution in mind—is that two different parts of the genome have had to make their own respective a.a. substitutions (2? 3?), since the ‘solution’ in water most likely has different constraints than the ‘solution’ for an atmosphere-based form of the same organism. Only detailed whole-genome analysis Read More ›

Intelligent Design is relatively new in its present form. Proponents often argue that there are features of biology that look like engineering, and in particular, that the programming of life, the DNA software that goes along with the cellular hardware, is analogous to the programming of computers. However, we haven’t yet been able to fully unpack the implications of that, partly because both computer science and genomics are developing disciplines. The following is merely  a speculative suggestion in the hopes of inspiring further investigation: Could it be that the designer(s) of the genomes of living organisms made use of code libraries in order to do so, as is done in computer software engineering? A code library is a suite of Read More ›