A+ | A- | Reset
Home arrow The Blogs arrow Guest Columnists arrow Bible, Science, and The Origin of Races

Bible, Science, and The Origin of Races PDF Print
Tuesday, 15 January 2008 15:37

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution.

The Conservative Voice

Active Image

Young people, and even adults, often wonder how all the varieties or "races" of people could come from the same original human ancestors. Well, in principle, that's no different than asking how children with different color hair ( i.e., blond, brunette, brown, red ) can come from the same parents who both have black hair.

Just as some individuals today carry genes to produce descendants with different color hair and eyes, humanity's first parents, Adam and Eve, possessed genes to produce all the variety and races of men. You and I today may not carry the genes to produce every variety or race of humans, but humanity's first parents did possess such genes.

All varieties of humans carry genes for the same basic traits, but not all humans carry every possible variation of those genes. For example, one person may be carrying several variations of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown, green, blue ) , but someone else may be carrying only one variation of the gene for eye color ( i.e., brown ). Thus, both will have different abilities to affect the eye color of their offspring.  {mosgoogle right}

Some parents with black hair, for example, are capable of producing children with blond hair, but their blond children (because they inherit only recessive genes) will not have the ability to produce children with black hair unless they mate with someone else who has black hair. If the blond descendants only mate with other blondes then the entire line and population will only be blond even though the original ancestor was black-haired.

In reality there is only one race - the human race - within which exists myriad variations and permutations.

The evidence from science shows that only microevolution (variations within a biological "kind" such as the varieties of dogs, cats, horses, cows, etc.) is possible but not macroevolution (variations across biological "kinds", especially from simpler kinds to more complex ones). The only evolution that occurs in Nature is microevolution (or horizontal evolution) but not macroevolution (or vertical evolution).

The genetic ability for microevolution exists in Nature but not the genetic ability for macroevolution. The genes (chemical and genetic instructions or programs) for microevolution exist in every species but not the genes for macroevolution. Unless Nature has the intelligence and ability to perform genetic engineering (to construct entirely new genes and not just to produce variations and new combinations of already existing genes) then macroevolution will never be possible in Nature.

We have varieties of dogs today that we didn't have a couple of hundred years ago. All of this is just another example of microevolution (horizontal evolution) in Nature. No matter how many varieties of dogs come into being they will always remain dogs and not change or evolve into some other kind of animal. Even the formation of an entirely new species of plant or animal from hybridization will not support Darwinian evolution since such hybridization does not involve any production of new genetic information but merely the recombination of already existing genes.

Another reason for why macroevolution is not possible in Nature is because a half-evolved and useless organ waiting millions of years to be completed by random mutations would be a liability and hindrance to a species - not exactly a prime candidate for natural selection. In fact, how could species have survived over, supposedly, millions of years while their vital (or necessary) organs were still in the process of evolving!

How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?

The genetic and biological similarities we find existing between various species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the varieties of life.

The Bible says God "hath made of one all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth ..." (Acts 17:26, KJV). The Bible clearly teaches that God created all human beings in His image. Therefore, as one of my former pastors, Dr. Carl E. Abrahamsen, Jr., so truthfully and eloquently stated, to hate a fellow human being who has been created in the image of God because of the way he or she looks is a great and serious sin and offense against God which needs to be confessed and repented of before God who graciously through His Son Jesus Christ.

*Some other Internet articles by the author are: "Why The Traditional View of Hell Is Not Biblical", "Early Christianity Before The Papacy", "Free Will and Sovereign Grace", "Christ Was Begotten, Not Created", "Artificial Life By Intelligent Design", "Any Life On Mars Came From Earth!", "Creationists Right On Entropy, Evolution", "Are There Natural Limits To Evolution?", "Where Are All The Half-Evolved Dinosaurs?". The most up-to-date versions of these and other articles may be accessed at: Babu G. Ranganathan's Articles.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. Mr. Ranganathan has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology from Bob Jones University. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author's articles have been published in various publications including Russia's Pravda and South Korea's The Seoul Times. The author's website may be accessed at: http://www.religionscience.com.

Comments (27)Add Comment
...
written by zhanyiyi, January 15, 2008 16:11:42
It is very possible to macroevolve artifically. The BUMIPUTRAS (An Indian word for sons of the soil created to show supriority) were provided with artificial clutches for the last 50 years. An such macroevolution has taken a permanent form in Malaysia for one particular race. Who says we cannot go against Nature? The BN government don't give a damn about Darwin's theory of evolution.Your theory does not work in Malaysia, and UMNO says MYOB.
report abuse
disagree 4
agree 9
...
written by temenggong, January 15, 2008 16:49:32
Of course there is macroevolution. Many animals today descend from dinosaurs. Land animals came from amphibians and fish. A species of male frogs in west africa can turn into female frogs and reproduce in a single season. Some heterosexual animals metamorphosize into unisexual animals in a lifetime.

Outright hallucinating! This is a poorly attempted backdoor entry of the theory of intelligent design. A theologian should not try to be a rocket scientist. smilies/smiley.gif
report abuse
disagree 3
agree 12
...
written by Milo, January 15, 2008 17:02:54
The arguement posted here on evolution is pure nonsence. If you want to know more of religious arguements to provoke your thoughts, go to: http://yourgodisimaginary.com/ smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 4
...
written by Raja Gasper, January 15, 2008 17:23:21
The title should be "The Bible,Quran and Science"- An Introduction to Origin of Races.
This topic needs a great amount of research and the writer should be an expert both
on Religions Studies and Science.

The views should be free from bias and knowledgeable in facts.Only we have two facts,
here to discuss that life is by creation(s) or evolution(s) and the conclusions.

Advanced knowledge and research on Human Science clearly supports the hypothesis that
human developments could not happened by simple evolution(s) and someone could have
created it in the begining state of infinite time.

For our simple Biology knowledge,when man and woman engage in sexual act,the life begins
after sucessfull ovalution process and thus life is formed or created by the parents.

report abuse
disagree 7
agree 6
...
written by densemy, January 15, 2008 17:36:42
... as an ex Lecturer in Animal Genetics my assessment of this pseudo scientific mumbo jumbo is LAUGHABLE. The author hasn't a clue about what he has written
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 8
...
written by Compadre45, January 15, 2008 17:51:18
Its just my " notion ". Why was the human race created in such varieties with differences? Or at least why wasn't something creditable created in place of it? God had "His" opportunity and only he had those answers. The possibility of "He" could have made a reputation. But no, He must commit this grotesque folly -- a lark which must have cost "Him" a regret or two when "He" came to think it over and observe the effects.

God's creation is unquestionable--as God who created the human race and intelligence, created science for us the human race to explore and discover the possibilities of the unknown. The Unknowns are "His" creations and every daring attempt to make a great change in "His" creations and existing conditions, are as every lofty vision of new possibilities for the human race, and has been labeled "Utopian".

Thus finally i conclude, we may have different religions, different languages, different colored skin, but we all belong to God's creation as "one human race." Until today this fact remains the same.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 2
...
written by Century Patriot, January 15, 2008 18:10:45
I would think again about this article bcos there are too many contradictions to be considered.Take for example the following paragraph;

The Earth’s natural caretakers may have been the Neanderthals, Cro-
Magnon, or even the Engis peoples.
Authors Max H. Flint and Otto O. Binder wrote in their book, Mankind, Child of the
Stars:
Cro-Magnon Man appeared with a mysteriously improved skeletal characteristics and with
a cranial capacity that is amazingly in excess by 100 cubic centimeters of that of modern
man…A similarly large degree of brain expansion occurred in absolutely no other species
on Earth in all the ages of the past, not has any genus shown evidence of brain mutation of a
comparable magnitude since antiquity. AND
In Uriel’s Machine, authors Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas write:
…Neanderthals did not contribute mitochondrial DNA to modern humans; Neanderthals are
not our ancestors…

Now ,if modern humans do not possess any DNA of the Neanderthals who existed way before us and now totally EXTINCT , yet we are to believed that Adam and Eve were the ancestors of Mankind!! How’s that??

Then there is a question of humans development and progression;

Researcher Laurence Gardner puts it this way:

It took man over a million years to progress from using stones as he found them to the realization
that they could be chipped and flaked to better purpose. It then took another 500,000
years before Neanderthal man mastered the concept of stone tools, and a further 50,000
years before crops were cultivated and metallurgy was discovered. Hence, by all scales of
evolutionary reckoning, we should still be far removed from any basic understanding of
mathematics, engineering or science – but here we are, only 7,000 years later, landing
probes on Mars…So, how did we inherit wisdom, and from whom?

Another interesting aspect pertaining to the constitution of human body is;

And in the fascinating book Mankind – Child of the Stars, Max H. Flint and Otto O.
Binder detail a very important anomaly:
...molybdenum, a very rare metal plays an important role as a trace element in the physiology
of all Earth creatures. It is surprising, therefore, that life so dependant on a rare metal
should arise on a molybdenum-poor world like ours

Now with all these mind boggling findings, could there be another version of human origin?? Hahaha.





report abuse
disagree 1
agree 1
...
written by miwaki, January 15, 2008 19:41:55
When the scripture said our original parent is Adam and Eve and you believe it.Tell who is original parent of dinosour ? You got a name for it ?
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 3
...
written by densemy, January 15, 2008 21:14:47
Miwaki... didnt you know the parents were Dinah and Esau??
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 3
...
written by Rohani Hitam, January 15, 2008 22:37:07
I just refuse to read further after few paragraphs. If some scientist want to be a theologian than I think there is a missing link somewhere. And if some thelogian wants to be a scientist using theology as a basis of argument then it is a total reversal of the evolutionary theory.

Theology and science do not mix. It is already a two different doctrine with the former implicating the supreme being and the later destroy the notion of God. Worst of all if some try to harmonise the two, in case of scientology, the doctrines become adulterated and full of errors.

You want to believe in God, you must have faith as you cannot use science to explain the supreme being, his creation and existence. It destroys the fundemental law of physics and biology. But if you are scientist and try to explain the supreme being being part of the universe then you are making a fool of science.

Never attempt to combine the two. Either you are here or there. Not in-between. There is no such thing.
report abuse
disagree 2
agree 4
...
written by miwaki, January 15, 2008 22:59:13
Hi densemy,
Thanks for your answer,how about the original parent of chicken ?
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 1
...
written by Milo, January 15, 2008 23:23:22
The original parent of the chicken is Colonel KFC Sanders... smilies/grin.gif
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 5
...
written by tom73my, January 16, 2008 00:01:19
My all time favorites:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by Kritz, January 16, 2008 02:01:21
Famous Anti-Evolutionary Quotes

"The over-riding supremacy of the myth has created a widespread illusion that the theory of evolution was all but proved one hundred years ago and that all subsequent biological research paleontological, zoological, and in the newer branches of genetics and molecular biology has provided ever-increasing evidence for Darwinian ideas." -Michael Denton, Evolution: A Theory in Crisis (1985), p. 327.

"Today our duty is to destroy the myth of evolution, considered as a simple, understood and explained phenomenon which keeps rapidly unfolding before us. Biologists must be encouraged to think about the weaknesses and extrapolations that the theoreticians put forward or lay down as established truths. The deceit is sometimes unconscious, but not always, since some people, owing to their sectarianism, purposely overlook reality and refuse to acknowledge the inadequacies and falsity of their beliefs." - Pierre-Paul de Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms (1977), p. 8.

"The Darwinian theory of descent has not a single fact to confirm it in the realm of nature. It is not the result of scientific research, but purely the product of imagination." - Dr. Fleischman [Erlangen zoologist].

"I have always been slightly suspicious of the theory of evolution because of its ability to account for any property of living beings (the long neck of the giraffe, for example). I have therefore tried to see whether biological discoveries over the last thirty years or so fit in with Darwin's theory. I do not think that they do. To my mind, the theory does not stand up at all." - H. Lipson, "A Physicist Looks at Evolution," Physic Bulletin, 31 (1980), p. 138.

"It is not the duty of science to defend the theory of evolution, and stick by it to the bitter end no matter which illogical and unsupported conclusions it offers. On the contrary, it is expected that scientists recognize the patently obvious impossibility of Darwin's pronouncements and predictions . . Let's cut the umbilical cord that tied us down to Darwin for such a long time. It is choking us and holding us back." - I.L. Cohen, Darwin Was Wrong: A Study in Probabilities (1985).

" `Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution we do not have one iota of fact.' A tangled mishmash of guessing games and figure juggling [Tahmisian called it]." - The Fresno Bee, August 20, 1959, p. 1-B [quoting T.N. Tahmisian, physiologist for the Atomic Energy Commission].

"One of the determining forces of scientism was a fantastic accidental imagination which could explain every irregularity in the solar system without explanation, leap the gaps in the atomic series without evidence [a gap required by the Big Bang theory], postulate the discovery of fossils which have never been discovered, and prophesy the success of breeding experiments which have never succeeded. Of this kind of science it might truly be said that it was `knowledge falsely so called.' " - David C.C. Watson, The Great Brain Robbery (1976).

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless." - Bounoure, Le Monde Et La Vie (October 1963) [Director of Research at the National center of Scientific Research in France].

"What is it [evolution] based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." - Arthur N. Field.
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 2
...
written by Kritz, January 16, 2008 02:12:30
The story of Ota Benga

After Darwin claimed in The Origin of Species that human beings had developed from a common ancestor they shared with monkeys, the search for fossils to support this scenario began. But some evolutionists believed that "half-monkey half-man" creatures might be found not only in the fossil record, but also living in various parts of the world. At the beginning of the 20th century the searches for the "missing link" were the cause of many acts of savagery. One of these was the story of the pigmy Ota Benga.

Ota Benga was captured in the Congo by an evolutionist researcher called Samuel Verner in 1904. This native, whose name meant "friend" in his own language, was married and the father of two children. But he was chained like an animal, put in a cage, and sent to the U.S.A. There, the evolutionary scientists put him in a cage with various species of monkey at the St. Louis World Fair and exhibited him as "the nearest link to man." Two years later they took him to Bronx Zoo in New York and displayed him with a few chimpanzees, a gorilla called Dinah and an orang-utan called Dohung as "man's oldest ancestors." The evolutionist director of the zoo, Dr. William T. Horniday, gave long talks about the pride it gave him to have the "missing link," and visitors treated Ota Benga in his cage just like an animal. An edition of the New York Times printed at the time described the visitors' attitudes:

http://www.islam4all.com/new_page_208.htm
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 2
...
written by renoir, January 16, 2008 03:05:23
This article is even funnier than the one on what Tamils ought to do. This guy Babu seems to know exactly what God did or did not do. Fantastic. (Actually "Babu" reminds me of a heroic celluloid character during the 50s - wonder anyone in my age group knew those movies).

Anyway, some comments:

>The genetic and biological similarities we find existing between various species are due to a common Designer who designed similar functions for similar purposes in all of the varieties of life.]]

Hmm..perhaps that's why God, who gave monkeys hands, also wanted them to write and type on the computer. Now I also know why someone said oral sex is ok under Islam, as it's a common mammallian behavior. I wonder, though, why God made oysters that could change their sex - what happens to all the similar functions for similar purposes?

And I really don't like your subjunctives as in "How, for example, were animals breathing, eating, and reproducing if their respiratory, digestive, and reproductive organs were still incomplete and evolving? How were species fighting off possibly life-threatening germs if their immune system hadn't fully evolved yet?"

Go for modal verbs, man! Say instead "How, for example, could animals breathe, eat, and reproduce if their ...blah,blah,blah."

Temenggong: some animals could conceivably evolve from land to sea, or at least into some semi-aquatic animals.

Rohani Hitam: didn't know you're a modern, logical Muslim - quite a rare breed. Think I was too hard on you. Sorry.

LChuah
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 1
...
written by fellow, January 16, 2008 09:16:52
Advice to author: Please read up "Science" before writing an article about it... smilies/shocked.gif
report abuse
disagree 1
agree 2
...
written by Milo, January 16, 2008 16:49:04
"written by tom73my, January 16, 2008 | 00:01:19
My all time favorites:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_EXqdJ4L7I"

I must say it is interesting and humourous. Those who are open minded will enjoy it.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 2
...
written by Saint, January 16, 2008 19:03:42
Well the writer knows little about genetics let alone discus about evolution.
Now, Adan and Eve carried all the genes, I wonder what genome each carried.
Of this how many Noah and his wife and children inherited.
And finally what was the final genome of Lot and his daughters.
At times, it is best not to write articles like this for public reading.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by miwaki, January 17, 2008 11:34:22
Milo,
Who is the parent of Colonel Sander ( KFC ) ?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by Thiru, January 17, 2008 15:37:36
Good example of corrupted by religion.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by michael chick, January 17, 2008 19:52:45
I have a question:
All Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that Noah's Ark carried a pair of EACH AND EVERY PAIR of animals in the Ark.
All Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that the Ark was Big enough to carry a pair of every animal species.
All Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that the flood destroyed the entire world, animals, humans and all (except for fish)
All Christians, Jews and Muslims believe that Noah was indeed the "Second Adam".

My question is:
How did Noah bring in the Koala Bears and the Kangaroos in time?
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by hiro, January 17, 2008 22:27:16
We can only engage in an open, healthy discourse over the issue of race in Malaysia if we first dismantle political structure built on certain assumptions about supremacy of a race. First, we need press freedom to get the message out to the masses. Secondly, if the political parties fail to restructure themselves organically, the rakyat will need the power of the vote to restructure them. They may have to lose an election for the transformation to happen.

But why is this important in the first place? Well, simply put, truth enpowers, and inspires. Racial politics is like a stack of cards on which you're trying to build the Petronas Twin Towers. It is the stuff that gives way to mid-life crisis when one day, the Malays wake up and don't really know who they really are in relation to other races in the country.

Better bite the bullet sooner than later.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by Kritz, January 18, 2008 04:33:12
We are descendent from a common ancestor. From two sexually different human beings.
If you believe in god you must believe that Adam is the very first man created by god. After Adam then Hawa (Eve) was created.

This is my theory on the origin of races.

Adam and Isa (Jesus) share the same likeness – physically, skin colour, eye colour etc.

"Verily, the likeness of Jesus in God's Sight is the likeness of Adam. He (God) created him from dust, then (He) said to him: ‘Be!'-and he was" (Quran 3:59).


Since Isa (Jesus) is a Jewish (Caucasian), Adam is presumably of the same race (Jews). So, Adam is a handsome Caucasian man; Hawa (Eve) meanwhile is a dark skinned woman, a beautiful Negro woman.

From: http://www.islamawareness.net/Adam/adam.html
"The report went on to say, "most evidence so far indicates that Eve"..."was more likely a dark-haired, black skinned woman (who) lived in sub-Saharan Africa." It is believed that our common ancestor - African Eve - must has lived "between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago".


In every pregnancy Hawa used to give birth to twins. A set of male and a female twin.
Their first twin is a Handsome Strong Caucasian boy and a Pretty Caucasian girl.
Their second twin is a not so handsome Negro boy and a skinny Negro girl.
In order to propagate, their children must get married between them. To diversify the gene pool in their small society, Adam tell his children that the eldest Caucasian boy must marry the younger Negro girl (which the guy protested) and the elder Caucasian girl must marry the younger Negro boy (which the boy happily accepted). And please take note that it was strictly prohibitive for Adam to consummate with his daughters and Hawa (Eve) with her sons.

Out of jealousy the Caucasian boy killed the Negro boy and this is the first crime that happened.

Such intermarriage result in this so-called RACE of different skin color in this world.

The Malays, Japanese, Korean and Chinese belong to Mongoloid race while Europeans, Americans, and Part of Asia belong to The Caucasian race. The black big negro fella that we sometime come across at Chow Kit belongs to the Negroid race.

So, we are from the same gene pool, same source, same species. Just look at Patrick Lim, Liew Kit Kong and Nichol Ann David, are they Malay, Chinese or Indian? There are a lot of intelligent and hardworking Malays and there are also a few stupid and laid back Chinese or Indians. Every race got their good qualities and shortcomings, as we are after all human.

PEACE
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by lokenpal, January 18, 2008 11:23:37
FYI:

The author graduated from Bob Jones U; which during the US2000 presidential election, it became known that the U had banned inter-racial dating. When this news became public after Bush visted the U, Mr Bob Jones had to remove the ban.

report abuse
disagree 0
agree 1
...
written by DontPlayGod, January 18, 2008 15:23:57
Aiyah, hard to believe, lah! I don't see any Chinese in China with blonde hair or blue eyes after more than 5000 years of recorded civilisation(no need to mention 10,000 years of unrecorded history). Do we see any Indians with fair skin, who are descended from Indian parents, and also after thousands of years of civilisation?

The writer wrote that many varieties of dogs were created, which were not in existence some centuries ago. Who is the author trying to fool? Of course, these new varieties of dogs came from crossing the different species of dogs, just like if you cross a Chinese and and Indian, or an Indian with a Caucasian, you will get a human being with different features from their parents, or even their siblings.

I maintain that the story of Adam and Eve were created by the writers of the ancient scriptures.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0
...
written by Tompios, January 19, 2008 06:06:29
Creations-Evolution Theology.

This article is good for exercising our brain to think. The thing the make me out of laugh is our education system totally follow the Darwin's concept of origin. Malaysia is a Moslem country but still depends on Darwin's text book to answer Science question in PMR or SPM. Please, do some effort to use Quran as a text book for origin Science. Am waiting for the moment.
report abuse
disagree 0
agree 0

Write comment
This content has been locked. You can no longer post any comment.
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.

busy
 
< Prev   Next >
 

Sponsored Links

World Futures  Moscow's Middle East conference: Should the Muslims depend only on the US to solve the Palestine crisis?

Future Fastforward  A controversial analysis by a controversial analyst, Matthias Chang, the lawyer-writer who unabashedly calls a spade a spade and offers no apology for doing so.

Internet TV 3000+ Channels  Pick your favorite internet TV channels straight to your PC! Yay!

Some Images Hosted With
Thank You ImageShack!
 BLOGGERS AGAINST ISA

Powered and Optimized for:
Malaysia Today by MT-TEAM