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
I do not object to the science part of the article. My objection is cluttering it up with nonsense about divine design.
[[I do not object to the science part of the article. My objection is cluttering it up with nonsense about divine design.]]
As opposed to macroevolutionists clutterign hteir science with ‘nature did it.... but we don’t know how”?
Just concnetrate on the science- scientists on both sides of hte isle are allowed their opinion
thearticles make clear which 2%- knock yourself out reading them- As I said- I’m done with your assinine questions and insulting tone- You’ve proven you aren’t serious about any of the science presented and are only looking for any way you can find to insult Creationists and ID folks with petty accusaitons and comments- Have a nice day
[[I do not object to the science part of the article. My objection is cluttering it up with nonsense about divine design.]]
And just for hte record- I too wish BOTH sides could just stick to the objective facts of science, as the evidences stand on their own merrits and present a ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ case for ID- but that’s never goign to happen- so we have to read subjective and objective together and simply strain through the rest. However, I do not begrudge a Christian site for teachign Christian messages, nor do I begrudge Macroevolutionists for opining on abotu hteir beleifs either.
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.