Question #1: Creationist Questions

I’m a big fan of the show. I met a number of you at NECSS 2011; I was Massimo’s (“Rationally Speaking”) guest speaker. Steve may remember me as the idiot at the dinner with Randi who didn’t know that Joe Nickell was the “shroud of Turin guy.” I’ve got something I really hope you can talk about on the show. I recently came across some biological claims in a creationist’s arguments that I had never heard before and are beyond my expertise. I tried to find someone creditable online that has already taken them on, but I came up empty handed. They come from a student of a friend of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, but teaches at a large religious institution. By no means is my friend a creationist (nor is her school “fundamentalist”), but the student (who was raised fundamentalist) wants to engage in dialogue and she’s not sure what to say. I was able to identify a number of logical fallacies, and a misunderstanding of the nature of science, involved in his argument, but I am unable to speak directly to his scientific examples. I’m hoping you can help out. I’ve pasted his e-mail below, so you can have the entire context. Specifically I’m wondering: (1) Are his examples about epinephrine and Iodine accurate, or has medical science already reversed on this—or is he just off base? (2) Is what he says about base pair errors accurate, and is that even relevant to whether or not natural selection can occur? (And it seems that, even if true, this would not be evidence against evolution–just against natural selection of individuals as a mechanism.) (3) Is his claim that “no errors in the DNA of early humans” (e.g., Adam and Eve) would have allowed them to live long lives and mate with siblings (without having genetically abnormal children) accurate? Really looking forward to what you have to say. Keep up the good work. David Kyle Johnson King’s College, Wilkes-Barre, PA His email begins: ”The problem is that once an idea becomes generally accepted in academia , it becomes almost impossible to challenge an accepted “truth”. In Medicine, there are certain truisms that, although, provable false, are almost impossible to challenge because they continue to be taught as “fact” in all medical schools: -epinephrine injected into a digit like a finger or toe can result in loss of the digit (never proven. Belief based on a study done in the 1940’s showing that people injected with novocaine with a pH of 1 lost digits. Epinephrine only used in 50% of the cases, and 100% of the cases involved acidic novocaine. Yet. Epinephrine gets the blame) -if you have an allergy to seafood you are allergic to Iodine (based on a study in the 1970’s showing that people who are prone to allergies tend to have more than one allergy. Never mind that almost all table salt has iodine in it, and if you can take table salt you probably can handle Iodine). When someone grows up hearing that certain “facts” can never be challenged, it is very difficult to accept any criticism of these facts. In my case, for example, I grew up believing in evolution. My Dad taught me evolution, so did my teachers, and any book I ever picked up. It was not until I went to college and began to learn the inner workings of the cell and molecular biology that I began to realize that evolution is a faith based religion in spite of the evidence. With every generation children inherit 12 to 30 base pair errors in their DNA from their parents. These errors are passed to each generation along with an additional 12 to 30 base errors. Over time, these errors accumulate in a net information loss, not gain. To claim mutations result in information “gain” is to claim that chaos is information. In some cases mutations have been protective, such as antibiotic resistance in certain bacteria, but this is only true in a very strict environment, and still only because the bacteria has lost the ability to metabolize that antibiotic, there “evolution” is based on a loss of information, and once that same bacteria is reintroduced to environment where bacteria without the mutation are present, the mutated bacteria quickly demonstrate they are unable to compete. The truth is humans are actually devolving. The mechanisms within the cell are impossible for random process to produce. Like trying to hit the moon with a bow and arrow. It does not matter how many times you try, the feat is impossible. That is also why Evolution is not compatible with the bible. The evidence shows we are losing information in our DNA code with each generation. Evolution claims the opposite. The Bible teaches that initially Men lived long life spans but after Noah there was significant reduction in the life span. This makes sense, because Noah’s family (the 8 on the ark) would have acted like a genetic bottle neck resulting in a drastic increase in genetic errors in forth coming generations. This accumulation in genetic errors would have resulted in impaired metabolism and increased susceptibility to disease. This is most likely why God allowed Noah and his family to begin eating meat after the flood. Also, this also why, in the beginning brothers could marry their sisters without fear of genetic abnomalies (Most likely Adam & Eve were created genetically perfect (i.e. no errors in the DNA), but once they were removed from the Garden God no longer sustained them in they way he previously had, and the mutations were allowed to accumulate which subsequently resulted in both of them dying of old age (aging is secondary to impaired cell division over time), they also passed on mutations to their children, and those children passed on not only the mutations they inherited, but new mutations with each generation. Defomed children born as a result of Incest are deformed because close family members share similar mutations. Since most mutations are recessive, if a person has a child with some who is not a close family member, the odds are they do not share similar mutations, and can have a relatively healthy child. This is why Cain most likely was able to marry his sister. At that time (one generation out from Adam Eve), not enough mutations had accumulated to warrant a threat to their offspring. Again, the facts of genetic information theory makes sense in what the genesis record tells us, but evolutionary theory does not even agree with the facts. ”