Genetic engineering opened the possibility of transferring genes between humans and animals and creating new organisms that are part human and part animal. The term for such a creature is a “chimera.” If this term is new to you, get used to it because in the future you are going to see it frequently.

Until recently, the actual production of a human/animal chimera was not legal in most countries, and scientists refrained from engaging in this type of experimentation. It was generally seen as a moral boundary few wanted to cross. However, with the slippery slope of today’s utilitarian materialism, sooner or later, every boundary is crossed.

On March 26th of this year, mailonsunday.co.uk reported that British researchers had succeeded in producing a sheep chimera with “…15% human cells and 85% animal cells.” The human cells were mostly isolated to the liver and other internal organs. The creature looks like a sheep with no visible human traits. However, it has a human liver. The object of the experiment was to create organs to be transplanted back into humans.

On September 4, 2007, it was reported by theregister.co.uk that the British government is about to permit the creation of human-chimera embryos. These will be embryos that are about 99% human and 1% animal. These will not be allowed to live beyond 14 days and are seen as only a research tool, at least for now.

It is not difficult to see where this research is heading. In the future, there will be pressure to bring such organisms to full term and to increase the percentage of animal cells in them. Indeed, Nazi researchers already tried this in the 1940s. They unsuccessfully tried to cross humans with apes. Some unfortunate female concentration camp inmates were actually inseminated with sperm from great apes and chimps to try to produce a half human - half ape hybrid. Fortunately, the Nazis lacked the proper technology, and the experiments failed. Unfortunately, humanity no longer lacks the necessary technology, and another of Hitler’s dreams may become reality before long.

Why This Is Important

The moral and legal dilemmas that this line of research will produce are unprecedented. What will a half human – half animal hybrid be regarded as spiritually? Does it have a soul? Is it made in God’s image? Should it be baptized? These questions probably will be a source of great delight to secularists as Christians struggle to deal with such issues.

However, the secular world will also have problems with this. For example, at what percentage of human genes does a chimera gain human rights? 51%? Can a human own a human chimera, or is this slavery? Can they be eaten? Can they own property and bring actions in court? Does the 15% human sheep chimera have 15% of human rights? Can a full human marry a chimera?

These are only a few of the hundreds of questions and morally repugnant possibilities that will soon be upon us.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Darwinian evolution rests on two pillars: Natural Selection and Random Mutation. Random genetic mutations are supposed to provide new biological traits from which natural selection culls out those which are not useful for the organism and preserves the ones that are. This process is believed adequate to have produced all the world’s biological diversity.

Because Darwinists believe that evolution is a purposeless process, they believe that it should be riddled with useless, unnecessary products. The human appendix and the panda’s thumb are the two organs, which are most commonly cited as examples of the undirectedness of this process of random mutation. It is argued that the appendix has no known function with the possible exception of enabling children to obtain an immediate attention from parents by complaining of a pain in the side. The panda’s thumb however has recently fallen out of favor as an example of evolution’s randomness due to studies showing that it is actually a finely tuned adaptation, assisting the efficient stripping of bark from bamboo, it’s main food source thereby allowing the panda can get to the inner soft tissue more efficiently (But that is another story).

However, the most powerful evidence for the randomness of the evolutionary process was “Junk DNA.” Junk DNA’s are portions of DNA molecules that were believed to serve no useful purpose. They appeared to be inactive, not coding for the manufacture of proteins, which is the primary function of DNA. It was believed that junk DNA composed about 98% of all human DNA. The fact that so much DNA appeared to do nothing led to the conclusion that junk DNA represented the results of random natural processes mutating the DNA and producing unusable, nonsensical stretches of nucleotide code.

The New Discovery

In June of this year the Encode Project (Encyclopedia of DNA Elements) published a group of 29 papers produced by hundreds of scientists working in 11 different countries that have completely overturned the view of “Junk DNA” as useless. This work is still in its early stages but to sum it up briefly: the scientists found that over 50% of all human DNA actually codes for RNA’s which do not go on to produce proteins but seem to be involved in other regulatory functions. These functions include keeping chromosomes from unraveling and controlling cell division.

But the most surprising, indeed shocking, contention of all is that most of these RNA’s seems to be standing by in the event that the body is suddenly exposed to an environmental change. In that event, they are immediately available to produce an adaptation to enable the organism to meet this challenge. This raises an enormously difficult question for the Darwinian paradigm: how could these standby RNA’s be maintained throughout numerous generations, possibly even thousands of generations, until they are needed? With no utility to the current generation they should be quickly selected out of the population but they are not.

Why This is Important

If evolution is an undirected process, as Darwinists claim, it should produce nonsensical and useless outcomes on a prodigious basis as was once believed to be the case. It has been estimated that in humans, about 10,000 harmful or useless mutations should accompany every useful one. Junk DNA was thought to be “smoking gun” evidence for this random process. As it is turning out there is probably no such thing as “Junk DNA.” This is powerful evidence for the observation that evolution is not the result of a random natural process but is rather the result of purposeful design and that purposeful design requires a designer. This designer is, of course, God.

Sources:

1. “Intricate Toiling Found in Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle” Washington Post, June 2, 2007, p. A1.

2. http://www.genome.gov/ , The Encode Project.

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

The words “Stem Cells” are probably the second most misused term in the current media lexicon, exceeded only by “Evolution”. The word is commonly misused in four ways simultaneously. Not an easy task but when the media is committed to advancing an agenda regardless of the facts, no amount of semantic misuse limits their imagination.

Please allow me to explain. As you have no doubt noticed during the last decade the media has been full of stories critical of those “opposed to stem cell research”. Such people are usually depicted as ignorant, pro-life, Luddites, opposed to scientific progress. Their mindless opposition, according to the media, is resulting in masses of suffering victims who would otherwise be cured if only these backward Christian, Conservatives would end their resistance to scientific progress.

What is the truth? Here are some facts.

A stem cell is a cell that has the ability to differentiate itself into different types of cells. A stem cell can turn into a liver, kidney, brain, hair, skin, bone or any other type of cell. Consequently it is believed that stem cells hold great promises for repairing damaged or diseased tissue. Imagine how wonderful it would be if a victim of liver cancer could be given an injection of stem cells that would go into the body and regenerate a new liver.

There are two main categories of stem cells: Embryonic Stem Cells and Adult Stem Cells. Embryonic stem cells are found in the placenta, placental blood and in embryos. Adult Stem Cells are found in other tissue mainly bone marrow, muscle and the brain. Stem cells are usually obtained from organ donors, fertility clinics and volunteers.

If you have been following the reporting on the subject you may be under the impression that stem cell research in the United States is currently not quite legal but some scientists, brave enough to defy the “zealots” on the Christian right have persisted in the face of persecution nonetheless.

Here are some facts. To begin with, there are no legal barriers to stem cell research carried out within HHS guidelines, absolutely none – none as in zero – despite the media misrepresentation. There are no limits on funding stem cell research with one exception and it is this one exception that the media is using as the source of its disinformation campaign. This one exception is using federal funds to harvest new lines of embryonic stem cells taken from human fetuses. This is the one and only exception. This one exception has come as the result of pro-life groups’ opposition to destroying more human embryos in order to extract their stem cells.

Here are a few other facts the media regularly fails to mention. If you want to harvest new lines of human embryonic stem cells there is absolutely nothing stopping you from doing it, as long as the funds used are not federal funds. So any foreign country, any university, any private company, any state, local government or private individual is completely free to do such research as long as they pay for it. As a matter of fact, several states including California have made funds available for this purpose.

Right now federal funds can be used to do research on all lines of adult human stem cells and all animal stem cells. Additionally in the United States there are currently over sixty lines of existing human embryonic stem cells available for research plus foreign line and privately owned lines for which federal funds can be used. On top of this, to show how truly bogus this entire issue is, new lines of Human Embryonic Stem Cells can be harvested from the placenta and placental blood of new births, making it completely unnecessary to use human embryos as a source for new lines of embryonic stem cells.

However, despite these facts, little money is going into establishing new lines of human embryonic stem cells. The reason for this is simple economics. Investors do not want to throw money away. It was widely believe on theoretical grounds that embryonic stem cells, being more plastic then adult cells, would be more likely to produce viable therapies. However so far this has not proven to be the case as there are currently 60 therapeutic uses of adult stem cells and 0 therapeutic uses of embryonic stem cells. The reasons for this are not entirely clear but seem to be related to genetic level complexities.

One of the reasons for the big push for federal funding of new lines from human fetal tissue seems to be to get funding for projects that would not be funded on economic or scientific grounds. This is being done by portraying denied federal funding as martyrs of “pro-life loonies” rather than people who are trying to pursue, what may very well be, a scientific blind alley.

Why the media distortions?

It is no secret that the media has an extremely strong liberal bias. They want to get their candidates elected and advance their ideological agenda and they are succeeding in this area. Polls have shown that their misrepresentation of this issue has created a very negative impression in the minds of many. The pro-life community is frequently believed to be indifferent to the suffering of disease victims. Additionally the media has succeeded to a large degree in portraying anyone who is concerned about the “slippery slope” of this type of research for any reason as “anti-science.”

By: Lawrence Vescera, Ph.D.

Multiple Coding in Animal Genes

Imagine being hired to write three different books.
The first one a mystery novel, the second a history of
World War II and the third a French cookbook. A lot of
work to be sure but you decide that you are up to the
task. However there is one catch – all three books
must be contained within the exact same text. The only
difference being that the novel will begin with the
first letter of the first word, the history will begin
with the second letter of the first word and the
cookbook will begin with the third letter of the first
word.

And of course all the words must be spelled exactly
correctly and all punctuation must be in the proper
place because even one error will result in an error
in all three books. So if the first word in the first
sentence of the mystery novel is “Help” the first word
of the history must begin with “elp” and the cookbook
must begin with “lp”.

Try to write even one short sentence in this fashion.
“Impossible” you say. Yes, for a human mind it is far
too complex a task. It is even a task far too complex
for the most advanced super computers. The information
density of a system that encodes three different
readings in one text simultaneously is truly
mind-boggling. For these reasons and others
geneticists had never bothered to examine the DNA in
eukaryotic cells to see if they were performing this
task until now.

To their astonishment researchers at Pennsylvania
State University, U. C. San Diego and Vrije University
in the Netherlands have discovered this process in
four different species including humans. The process
labeled Duel-Coding or Alternate Reading Frames is
taking place in at least 40 of the genes in your cells
right now.

Why This Is Important

Let the article published in May of 2007 in
“Computational Biology” speak for itself: “Duel Coding
Is Virtually Impossible by Chance.” (The capitals are
not mine) The researchers using new techniques of
statistical analysis further concluded: “Here we show
that although duel-coding is nearly impossible by
chance, a number of human transcripts contain
overlapping coding regions.” and ” Maintainance of
duel-coding is evolutionary costly and there occurance
by chance is statistically improbable.” When the
authors use the word “improbable” here they really
mean as they stated earlier that the chances are so
small statistically of the phenomena occurring by
chance that in reality is not going to happen.

So if this duel-coding is “Impossible by Chance” how
does it come into being? The fact that these
scientists had the courage to publish this result is
shocking in itself. They may have put their jobs and
careers in jeapordy already. So it should be no
surprise that the authors do not deal with the obvious
design implications of their work. But there are only
two possible explanations for any natural phenomena
either it comes about as the result of a meaningless,
purposeless process (as materialism demands) or it
comes about as the result of a purposeful design. The
design inference here is very strong.

Source:
Wen-Yu Chung, Samir Wadhawan, Radek Szklarczyk, Sergei
Pond and Anton Nekrutenko, “A First Look at ARFome:
Duel-Coding Genes in Mammalian Genomes”, Public
Library of Science: Computational Biology, May 18,
2007, Vol 3, No 5.