Trending away creationism, 6 hybrids

[Kuznetzova]

Trending away creationism, 6 hybrids



Mankind's understanding of the natural world has exploded since the first half of the 19th century. Since then, more data has flooded in from both cosmic realms and the nanoscopic realms. As our data and theories of the world expand, the trend is moving conspicuously away from creationism. The gaps in our knowledge, where the creative acts of a supernatural god could be inserted, grow ever smaller and ever more sparse.

Join me on a six-part series as we travel along and discuss the evidence that is most disastrous for creationist accounts of nature's origins.

Part 6 covers laboratory hybridization of species by geneticists.

On at least three occasions prior to 2007, then president George W. Bush was seen on camera giving a speech about a piece of legislation dealing primarily with stem cell research. But in particular, he would always slow his voice down when enunciating the phrase "human-animal hybrids". After reciting that phrase in a clear voice, he would pause momentarily to look at the press around him, with a look of (almost) indignation on his face.

We may ask the creationist the following questions.

(1) Why should the federal government of the United States of America need to pass legislation on something which should be physically impossible?

(2) If God created the sparrows and the bluebirds separately, and his intent was to keep them apart, then how are scientists creating hybrid species in laboratories?

We can return to the topic raised in part 4 of our Trending-Away-Creationism series. Namely, this is the idea that God created all the species on earth as natural kinds which are each placed in their separate species box stalls in the great Stable of Life. All the stalls are separated by an impenetrable wall, ordained by the creator Himself. {see part 4, evolution}

The impenetrable wall between species must be embodied somewhere in God's creations, and should eventually turn up as a mysterious blocking mechanism keeping the relative DNAs among natural kinds incompatible with each other. {A wordplay is used here. "Natural kinds" is not a technical word in biology, or any other science. It is only seen in creationist literature. } The author is perfectly willing to respect the plausible existence of such blocking mechanisms in God's created life forms -- and equally willing to test for their existence in a real experiment. Unfortunately, all hybridizations performed to date is not turning it up. There is no evidence for blocking mechanisms between species. Let us turn to the technical aspects of those experiments.

Researchers in Shanghai Medical University performed an experiment with a live embryo of a rabbit in 2003. At a very early stage of development the rabbit's cells were still Embryonic Stem Cells. The scientists swapped the DNA out of a few of the stem cells in the embryo, with human DNA. The rabbit embryo continued to develop, and the human portions grew right along with it. But what was this thing growing? It was a rabbit that was partially human. The resulting organism from this particular procedure is dubbed a "chimera" by biologists. Other experiments in the United States at Stanford hybridized a cow with human T-cells. And at UC San Diego, a goat was hybridized with a human liver.

Research into chimeras proceeds as in the above examples, where a fertilized animal embryo has portions of its cell types converted to human versions. This is done primarily as a method in the context of stem cell research, where the scientific discoveries are meant to be applied directly to human medicine. There is nothing to say the reverse could not be performed, that is, we start with a live human embryo and change portions of its cells to that of animal cells. Unlike before, the ethical problems become more pronounced in this (very likely) scenario.

We are primed now to state the proper analogy. Namely the roughshod, mechanical manner in which a bacterium makes copies of a bacteriophage is analogous to the stem cell DNA being swapped in hybridization experiments. The embryonic stem cells of animals are perfectly happy being converted into human versions, simply by the injection of the right material, or by swapping DNA directly. There is no mechanism of stoppage ordained or cleverly inserted into the design by a "Designer".

We can continue making analogies. The last three parts of the Trending-away-creationism series show an unbroken thematic thread; a thread which is in harmonious agreement with the original discovery of Darwin. Namely, that the boundaries between species are blurred in the real world. A combative creationist may argue that these boundaries can be bent, but cannot be broken. That is demonstrably NOT true, in light of hybridization.

Combative creationists who like to propose some faux distinction between "Macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" are doomed to defeat. Hybridization illuminates the reality of the situation. DNA is extremely interchangeable. Not "micro-interchangeable" but exaggeratedly interchangeable among various species. Asserting that changes must be "micro" but never "macro" can be immediately be shown false, wherein no evidence of blocking mechanisms appear during experiments. In technical jargon, these experiments are said to falsify the creationist claim.

A number of various repercussions and avenues of discussion are open now. Each of which could be expanded on to book length. I could expand on the topic of reductionism, since we could approach the subject of whether the cells in our bodies are better described as "Little soul-filled angels", "agents of conscious intent and action", or better as "mechanical chemical machines". At the very least, ebola infections suggest our cells are chemical machines. A popular topic for biologists are retro-viruses, whose mode of attack on the cell is to write portions of their own DNA into the nucleus of the invaded host cell. This is a very popular topic for blogger-type atheists, since it is related to evidence among homo sapiens and chimpanzees. These digressions can be left out appropriately, since they are stories that are only completely appreciated by people with graduate degrees. Large tracts on human evolution are not appropriate to the main thematic material of this article series. The educated reader may be complaining in the back of their minds that I have covered material only related to "Orthodox Darwinism" or "Classical Darwinism". The author is full aware of how modern evolutionary biology differs from the classical version, and that digression is picked up and expanded upon (for the reader's sake) in the appendix.

[Bernard]

When a rabbit is able to paint the Sistine chapel or even just produce rational communication you might be on to something but this is not hybridising that you describe.

Trending away creationism, 6 hybrids



Mankind's understanding of the natural world has exploded since the first half of the 19th century. Since then, more data has flooded in from both cosmic realms and the nanoscopic realms. As our data and theories of the world expand, the trend is moving conspicuously away from creationism. The gaps in our knowledge, where the creative acts of a supernatural god could be inserted, grow ever smaller and ever more sparse.

Join me on a six-part series as we travel along and discuss the evidence that is most disastrous for creationist accounts of nature's origins.

Part 6 covers laboratory hybridization of species by geneticists.

On at least three occasions prior to 2007, then president George W. Bush was seen on camera giving a speech about a piece of legislation dealing primarily with stem cell research. But in particular, he would always slow his voice down when enunciating the phrase "human-animal hybrids". After reciting that phrase in a clear voice, he would pause momentarily to look at the press around him, with a look of (almost) indignation on his face.

We may ask the creationist the following questions.

(1) Why should the federal government of the United States of America need to pass legislation on something which should be physically impossible?

(2) If God created the sparrows and the bluebirds separately, and his intent was to keep them apart, then how are scientists creating hybrid species in laboratories?

We can return to the topic raised in part 4 of our Trending-Away-Creationism series. Namely, this is the idea that God created all the species on earth as natural kinds which are each placed in their separate species box stalls in the great Stable of Life. All the stalls are separated by an impenetrable wall, ordained by the creator Himself. {see part 4, evolution}

The impenetrable wall between species must be embodied somewhere in God's creations, and should eventually turn up as a mysterious blocking mechanism keeping the relative DNAs among natural kinds incompatible with each other. {A wordplay is used here. "Natural kinds" is not a technical word in biology, or any other science. It is only seen in creationist literature. } The author is perfectly willing to respect the plausible existence of such blocking mechanisms in God's created life forms -- and equally willing to test for their existence in a real experiment. Unfortunately, all hybridizations performed to date is not turning it up. There is no evidence for blocking mechanisms between species. Let us turn to the technical aspects of those experiments.

Researchers in Shanghai Medical University performed an experiment with a live embryo of a rabbit in 2003. At a very early stage of development the rabbit's cells were still Embryonic Stem Cells. The scientists swapped the DNA out of a few of the stem cells in the embryo, with human DNA. The rabbit embryo continued to develop, and the human portions grew right along with it. But what was this thing growing? It was a rabbit that was partially human. The resulting organism from this particular procedure is dubbed a "chimera" by biologists. Other experiments in the United States at Stanford hybridized a cow with human T-cells. And at UC San Diego, a goat was hybridized with a human liver.

Research into chimeras proceeds as in the above examples, where a fertilized animal embryo has portions of its cell types converted to human versions. This is done primarily as a method in the context of stem cell research, where the scientific discoveries are meant to be applied directly to human medicine. There is nothing to say the reverse could not be performed, that is, we start with a live human embryo and change portions of its cells to that of animal cells. Unlike before, the ethical problems become more pronounced in this (very likely) scenario.

We are primed now to state the proper analogy. Namely the roughshod, mechanical manner in which a bacterium makes copies of a bacteriophage is analogous to the stem cell DNA being swapped in hybridization experiments. The embryonic stem cells of animals are perfectly happy being converted into human versions, simply by the injection of the right material, or by swapping DNA directly. There is no mechanism of stoppage ordained or cleverly inserted into the design by a "Designer".

We can continue making analogies. The last three parts of the Trending-away-creationism series show an unbroken thematic thread; a thread which is in harmonious agreement with the original discovery of Darwin. Namely, that the boundaries between species are blurred in the real world. A combative creationist may argue that these boundaries can be bent, but cannot be broken. That is demonstrably NOT true, in light of hybridization.

Combative creationists who like to propose some faux distinction between "Macro-evolution" and "micro-evolution" are doomed to defeat. Hybridization illuminates the reality of the situation. DNA is extremely interchangeable. Not "micro-interchangeable" but exaggeratedly interchangeable among various species. Asserting that changes must be "micro" but never "macro" can be immediately be shown false, wherein no evidence of blocking mechanisms appear during experiments. In technical jargon, these experiments are said to falsify the creationist claim.

A number of various repercussions and avenues of discussion are open now. Each of which could be expanded on to book length. I could expand on the topic of reductionism, since we could approach the subject of whether the cells in our bodies are better described as "Little soul-filled angels", "agents of conscious intent and action", or better as "mechanical chemical machines". At the very least, ebola infections suggest our cells are chemical machines. A popular topic for biologists are retro-viruses, whose mode of attack on the cell is to write portions of their own DNA into the nucleus of the invaded host cell. This is a very popular topic for blogger-type atheists, since it is related to evidence among homo sapiens and chimpanzees. These digressions can be left out appropriately, since they are stories that are only completely appreciated by people with graduate degrees. Large tracts on human evolution are not appropriate to the main thematic material of this article series. The educated reader may be complaining in the back of their minds that I have covered material only related to "Orthodox Darwinism" or "Classical Darwinism". The author is full aware of how modern evolutionary biology differs from the classical version, and that digression is picked up and expanded upon (for the reader's sake) in the appendix.

[Kuznetzova]

Presenting falsifying evidence for blocking mechanisms is far more than being "on to something".

[Bernard]

I don't think falsifying evidence can be made when we don't really know what manner of blocking mechanism would exist, or if its even a visible physical mechanism; one could probably argue that the blocking mechanism is simply sheer difference and improbability. Simple observational evidence shows that species evolve through selections of genes already present in gene pools within each species and that one of the fundamental characteristics of species development is differentiation from other species. Chimeric results from laboratories are simply Frankensteinish attachments. Chimera are not hybrids and are not regarded to be so by most clear thinking scientists.

If trees somehow decided to hybridise with akangaroos and managedtherefore to be able to hop from one water source to another during a time of drought it would be at first impression a good thing for trees. But I would imagine that it would be far more expedient for trees to do this through evolution within their own gene pool sources directly, rather than through the indirect method of being able to convince their gene pool to be able to accept kangaroo DNA and then to cajole kangaroos into participation. There would not be enough time in the universe for such a complex endeavour, let alone earth.