Posted on 02/14/2009 7:52:25 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
The last of a type of wild mountain goat was found dead in the mountains of northern Spain in 2000. The Pyrenean ibex, characterized by its curved horns, was officially declared extinct, but not before tissue samples were collected and preserved in liquid nitrogen.
Scientists used DNA extracted from the samples and, replacing the genetic material in eggs from domestic goats, cloned a female Pyrenean ibex—the first extinct animal to be cloned. Unfortunately, the clone died shortly after birth “due to physical defects in its lungs. Other cloned animals, including sheep, have been born with similar lung defects,” the Telegraph reported.1
Indeed, cloned animals suffer from several common deficiencies, including premature aging due to the starting DNA having shortened telomeres, lengths of DNA occurring at the ends of chromosomes.2 The frozen DNA likely had mutations also. This is because “even when preserved in ice, DNA degrades over time and this leaves gaps in the genetic information required to produce a healthy animal.”1
This form of whole-animal cloning reflects the biblically consistent biological principle of biogenesis, that life begets life. In this case, the preserved DNA was removed from a skin cell and placed into a live goat egg cell. The whole female goat, complete with her womb and an egg, was required to produce the clone. The ibex cloning would not have worked if the embryo had been placed in, for example, a female wolf’s womb. This occurred according to the Creator’s plan, where creatures reproduce after their kinds.
Another observation involves the shortening of telomeric DNA with each cell division and the accumulation of additional DNA damage as the immediate physical causes of aging, which leads to death.3 How did those processes begin? Why do living organisms undergo aging, corruption, and death—unless the Bible’s description of death’s origin is accurate?
It seems that the more complex a system is, the more that can go wrong. Bacteria are essentially self-cloning, can regenerate their telomeric DNA each generation, and are the best adapted to survive in the widest array of environments. If novel life forms arose by natural forces favoring the fittest—as evolutionary theory claims—then bacteria should have been the pinnacle of evolution. “Complex, highly evolved life, like the human, has no reason to appear. So why should these chance mutations plan such complex types of animals?”4
Finally, though DNA is damaged much more easily outside a living cell, damage also adds up over generations, even with the remarkable array of DNA damage detection, prevention, repair, and replacement mechanisms that were engineered into living cells. Not only do cells accumulate damage over time that ultimately leads to death, but 100 mutations per generation in reproductive cells eventually lead to extinction of whole kinds.5 Such accumulated DNA damage may have contributed to the demise of the Pyrenean ibex after 1981 when “just 30 remained.”1 Other species such as the Tasmanian Devil are also showing signs of collapse.6 The observations that whole kinds are nearing extinction due to genetic degradation, and many are already gone, run counter to the evolutionary concept that novel life forms emerge over time.
If whole-animal cloning is going to work, instead of producing one non-viable offspring out of 439 embryos (as this project did), it must somehow restore to an acceptable level the original genetic information by making the required individual DNA base changes. Without a wholesale restoration of uncorrupted DNA, life on earth is doomed to eventually die out.
Thankfully, God has promised to make a “new heaven, and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away.”7 The God of creation will be the God of re-creation. Ultimately, He is the only One capable of performing a true resurrection.
References
Some call this an accident, lucky, and random occurance.
[[Fewer chromosomes? Fewer genes? Fewer fingers?]]
This could result yes, from mutational mistakes which corrupt the genome, or the results may be far less dramatic and affect only minor systems, but the fact that corruption does take place, and can be verified to have benen increasing over time strongly suggests, once again, that species were created with pure genomes, and that after hte fall, were susceptible to corruption- just as God implied would happen IF we chose to eat the fruit- the genome has been ‘deteriorating’ ever since- thankfully htough God PREDESIGNED the genome to be able to handle stresses and mistakes to a certain degree, and htankfully, God has enabled scientists to be able to have hte wisdom and knowledge necessary to study and thrawt some mistakes, some of which are quite severe.
Good night-
I'm really going to have to ask you for a source on that one. I've tried searching for backup for that claim, but everything I can find makes me think you misunderstood something you read.
We have more "mistakes" than humans 1000 years ago? What bad things did these "mistakes" do to us?
You have a peer reviewed source for this claim?
just as God implied would happen IF we chose to eat the fruit
Animals didn't eat any fruit, why would their genome decay?
bye bye kid- your ‘questions’ have become increasingly assinine- go back to DC and play yourl ittle games- done wasting time on you
You’ll find it- keep looking- the further back they went, the less mutaitons they found
Thanks for proving your scientific ignorance.
“Would spell check kill you? LOL!”
Yes, because it would stop me fepm intentionally pissing you off!
The next i-Bex will have a touch screen and GPS locator.
Yep- you’ve rebutalled the points well- great job- oh wait- no you didn’t- every point brought up you simply ingored in this and hte other htread you posted in- I’d say well done, but it woudl be nothign more than a sarcastic lie on my part- Care to address any of hte points? Or do you still want to just sit back and hurl one assinine ‘quesiton’ after another out htere? How about starting with a simpel one- How about startign with the similarity of nylon to protiens bacteria fed on previously since it shoots down the ‘nylon wasn’t invented until recently’ argument? How about also demonstrating how a bacteria can evolve in just 9 days without any preinstructions inplace directing it? Here’s a couple of hints, it’s microevolution- somethign we KNOW to be fact, and the similar structures of protiens and nylon makeup didn’t require much in the way of microadaption- but let’s see you make hte case for macroeovlution in just 9 days. I’ll wait.
that’s not why i don’t- one i’m too lazy- 2 the vast number of silly points brought up involve my searchign hte internet for long periods, plus writing many posts, plus searchign htrough artilces- I’m not goign to stop and take hte time- Sorry if it ‘pisses you off’- but it would piss me off more to take even more time by spell checking- I only have limitted amounts of time each day-
[[Thanks for proving your scientific ignorance.]]
Says the handwaving dismisser who conflates invasion with macroevolutionary evidence.
This website evolved a spell button, just under your tagline. Even those precoded for ignorance can use it. LOL!
FReepers 65 and older are exempt from spelling disagreements
Especially if their age and IQ are the same.
Meh- let him hurl his little childish insults- He’s just proving he isn’t interested in anythign but insulting Creationists
How old are you todd? You act like a child- when the evidence gets too tough- you resort to childish insults? How ya doing with Nylonase problem? Turns out the bacteria could only ‘digest’ 2%, and by gosh by golly, that 2% that is digested is JUST LIKE their previous food sources structure-wise- woopsie Seems they aren’t ‘digesting nylon’ after all but only that part of hte structure that they were previously able to digest in protiens- Seems hte precoding was there after all, and al l it took was a frameshift to reactivate the ability to digest somethign they HAD digested i nthe past- TO simply said “They now have the ability to digest nylon- somethign that didn’t exist i nthe past” and made it sound liek the bacteria were digesting the whole nylon- seems TO can’t be relied on for ALL the FACTS and that htey HIDE these facts fro mthe public because it is detrimental to their petty anti-Creationists claims. Seems AIG was more right than TO said- once again. Wil lwe see a retraction andapology from TO? Not likely, they’d as soon poke htier own eyes out than admit anything.
Here- I’ll help you out since it seems you’ve once again run away fro mthe situaiton:
Turns out that not even those studying the nylonase issue agree it didn’t infact come from preexisting info (Yet Talkorigins somehow knows better than the researchers I guess):
http://www.jbc.org/cgi/content/full/280/47/39644 is also by Negoro and says “we conclude that the nylon oligomer hydrolase utilizes nucleophilic Ser112 as a common active site both for nylon oligomer- hydrolytic and esterolytic activities. However, it requires at least two additional amino acid residues (Asp181 and Asn266) specific for nylon oligomer-hydrolytic activity. Here, we propose that amino acid replacements in the catalytic cleft of a preexisting esterase with the {beta}-lactamase fold resulted in the evolution of the nylon oligomer hydrolase.” They conclude “the nylon oligomer-degrading enzyme (EII)is considered to have evolved from preexisting esterases with {beta}-lactamase folds.”
Whip out you insult book- you’re goign to need it apparently- Ther’e a saying that when the going gets tough, and oyu’ve got no ammo- the only recourse is to resort to name calling and childish taunts- You’ve portrayed this process to a T.
Please point to which 2% they digest. Thanks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.