(5).jpg)
Insert photo caption or credit here
The scientist, John Kramer, PhD in biochemistry, says about young earth creation -
"It was obvious to me that life could not form or be sustained in either a reducing or oxidizing atmosphere, never mind the unlikely association of inanimate molecules to form highly ordered structures containing information, fragile biological cells, and processes where several parts all need to be working together simultaneously."
"It would be easier to believe in a Creator who made it all, than in favorable conditions acting on inanimate matter over time."
"I came to the firm conclusion that evolution lacked evidence to make it credible."
"I became very disillusioned with evolutionists who managed to give good science followed by irrational conclusions that complex systems and processes just happened by some unexplained evolutionary mechanism plus time. No evidence. No logic. Just wishful dreaming."
"It also became evident to me that both (creation and evolution) views were strictly a matter of belief. To me the creation scenario appeared more logical than an explosion followed by self-propelled organization of matter which does not possess these properties."
"No one has ever demonstrated macroevolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals and man."
"The changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominantly disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity."
Quoting Lee Spence, "'Whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who lost a little money on every sale but thought he could make it up on volume.'”
"...to view thermophilic and halophilic bacteria as earlier and simpler forms of life is totally misrepresenting their complexity."
" ...to give these complex lipid structures common names containing the prefix 'archae,' to denote their evolutionary hierarchy, does not provide scientific evidence. It states one’s belief, but adds no scientific knowledge."
"I have found that scientists do not maintain a strictly evolutionary approach in the biochemistry-nutrition area. I am delighted to see that scientists are becoming brave and pointing out the inconsistency of evolutionary thought."
"...authors (scientists) who clearly demonstrate the inconsistency of evolution, leave the reader in a vacuum."
"I believe the sum total of many facts would lead a person to reasonably conclude that the Genesis record may be the most plausible scenario."
"Numerous pieces of evidence fit a young earth. To mention a few: the historical records, the population growth, the helium content in this world, the missing neutrinos from the sun [please see recent findings on this topic], the oscillation period of the sun, the decline of the earth’s magnetic field, the limited number of supernovas, radioactive halos, the mitochondrial DNA pointing to one mother, and the increase in genetic diseases."
"Archeologists have no problem identifying man-made objects. Why then do we have problems identifying a Creator-made world?"
"He (God) established a blueprint for our life, six days of work and one day of rest (Exod. 20:8). It must have been painstaking for God to slow down to our pace, to six days. It would have been more His nature to create everything instantly."
---
John Kramer, Ph. has a B.Sc. and M.Sc. in Biochemistry from the University of Manitoba and a Ph.D. in Biochemistry with a minor in Organic Chemistry from the University of Minnesota.
He is a former Hormel Fellow at the Hormel Institute, Austin, MN (1968-70) and an NRC Fellow (1970-71) at the University of Ottawa.
He is a member of Agriculture Canada in Ottawa as a Research Scientist (1970-present).
He received the Government of Canada Merit Award (1983), the CSP Canola Research Award (1984), and the Dutton Research Award (1999).
Dr. Kramer has published over 147 refereed papers, 40 miscellaneous papers, 55 abstracts, 2 books and 11 chapters.
The rest of the essay and references can be found here.
See also:
No more sweeping statements by scientists on the origin of life, evolution and old earth creationism
12 more insights of young earth creation (YEC) scientist - Jerry Bergman, PhD, 2 of 2
12 more insights of young earth creation (YEC) scientist - Jeremy Walter, PhD, part 2 of 2
Comments
Because an all-powerful being poofing everything into existence 6000 years ago makes so much more sense.
Looks like Kramer needs to return to school.
For example, he says "The changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominantly disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity."
Blatantly untrue, and a frequent lie of AIG (and Jerry Bergman too). Just Google "mutation information gain" and see what you can find (that is if you wish to be disabused of the falsehood).
FYI - if you are no longer an adolescent and you like milk, you can thank mutations for your ability to digest it. Whether you consider that to be a beneficial mutation I leave up to you :-)
John Kramer is hopelessly wrong. He says:
"No one has ever demonstrated macroevolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet many people readily speculate evolutionary links between bacteria, plants, animals and man."
"The changes (mutations) observed on a molecular level, such as DNA, are predominantly disruptive, and always with loss of, not gain in, information and complexity."
There are thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species.
It takes about 20 seconds to look up those studies online. Why didn't Kramer bother to take a look?
Try TRIM5-CypA protein for starters.
An excellent article by Dr. Kramer. Cubic says: "There are thousands of examples of how mutations lead to new traits and even new species."
New traits or new species are not examples of macroevolution. A new species of dog is still a dog. A dog with a longer tail is still a dog.
Dr. Kramer said that mutations are predominantly disruptive and cause a net loss in information and complexity. Diochs says he is blatantly wrong. Fact: Natural selection can only act on those biological properties which already exist. It cannot create biological properties in order to meet adaptational needs. Just about any Biology book will tell you that almost all mutations are harmful. Evolution requires a net gain of information and complexity over time. Any honest scientist will tell you mutations will not provide them. Evolution is a philosophical choice, not a scientific one. How we got an eye is not pure science, it is philosophy or religion. Some never learn to tell the difference.
@ Dr. Edgeworth
Dr., I'm not sure what your point is - no one has implied that Natural Selection (or Sexual Selection, or Genetic Drift, and so on) can act on anything that is not already present within a population. Of course this is a fact, but not one that corroborates your point.
After posting my thoughts, I immediately regretted not clarifying what specifically was wrong about the comment I was criticizing. To nitpick, mutations are almost entirely neutral as they they most frequently occur in non-expressing regions (the bulk of) our DNA. New expressible mutations are largely deleterious, but by no means always. All what is needed for evolution to occur is that positive (or even neutral) mutations to be conferred to successive generations.
Mutations provide novel traits (and our research shows this is the case), the material that Natural Selection acts on. And by your own admission, you state that mutations are not always harmful. Hence, evolution is possible.
...
Dr., you also say that a dog is still a dog even if it has a longer tail. Out of curiosity, since we humans once had tails (and some of us are still born with them), were we "humans" before or after our 'tail-genes' broke?
And sorry, you can't poison the well by stating "honest" biologists say whatever you wish them to say. I think that I'm reasonably aware of what biologists actually have to say, and know that the majority of them disagree with you. But it doesn't matter if only 1 biologist agreed and the rest didn't (or vice versa), what matters is the data. Until you provide an argument this agrees with the available data, I'm comfortable leaning towards the (testable, falsifiable) explanation that best fits it.
Yet to say that "...Some never learn to tell the difference [between science, philosophy, and religion] is the height of irony.
Heh...I should have Googled "Arv Edgeworth" before I replied. For those that do not know, he is a founding member of "Truth and Science", and a self-described "Creation Science Evangelist". Arv, if you don't mind me asking, what are you a doctorate of?
Google Dr. Edgeworth, and come to your own conclusions be what they may.
Dioch.. thanks for the googling tip. His web site is a mish mash of one confused point after the other, including the usual misunderstanding of thermodynamics other matters.
The proposed contrast between faith and science is pretty amazing. Somehow, because science is constantly learning new things, revising models this makes it unreliable but an account written 2 thousand years ago by a primitive nomadic tribe supposedly derived from a being whose existence isn't evident is complete and reliable.
Dr. Arv Edgeworth writes:
"Just about any Biology book will tell you that almost all mutations are harmful."
All mutations are random, and any serious biologist will tell you that mutations can be beneficial, neutral, or harmful for an organism.
An easy way to show beneficial mutations is to study bacteria of the species Pseudomonas fluorescens, where a population can expand rapidly in only a few hours. Mutations, including numerous beneficial mutations, take place at a relentless rate in front of your eyes.
Observers write up such findings and submit them to a ruthless review process conducted by peers in the field. And that's how we know that beneficial mutations in the organism can be considered a fact.
This process is important. Failure to subject your ideas to the same process means that your claims should not be taken seriously and can be easily dismissed. Take heed.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!