mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Home

Stories & Articles

STORIES
A Turkey Named Dawg

Oscar, the Hog-Riding Monkey

Reflections On A Cosmic Killshot

Portuguese Bullfighting

Feeling the Breeze

ARTICLES
Darwinism vs. Creationism

A Starchild Debate

Raising the Starchild

In Search of the Starchild

Starchild or Star Being?

The Starchild Saga

The Starchild Skull

Life's True Beginnings

Fox Television Hoax Exposed

Carpenter Genes

Contact Lloyd

Site production and design
Mark LaRose Graphics & Design
Last updated on June 3, 2000 

ESSAY ON CARPENTER GENES
Why Darwinian Evolution Is Flatly Impossible
by Lloyd Pye
This was in Australia's Exposure Magazine in November 1998.

No matter how high evidence was stacked up against evolution in the
past, Darwinists could always slip through the "...it COULD have
happened..." loophole. As long as genetic mutations and slight
physical changes (microevolution) were evident, interspecies
transitions (macroevolution) had to be accepted as at least plausible.
Not any more. In five brief pages, this article closes the Darwinian
loophole, and evolutionary science will never be the same!
-David Summers, Publisher/Editor

Remembrance of Things Past
1999 will be the 140th anniversary of the publication of Charles
Darwins On The Origin Of Species. In that landmark volume he
postulated that life on Earth had developed into its millions of forms
through a long, slow series of fundamental changes in the physical
structure of all living things, plants and animals alike.  Though
small and gradual, these changes would be relatively constant. Bit by
imperceptible bit, gills would turn into lungs, fins would turn into
limbs, scales would turn into skin, bacteria would turn into us. The
problem for Darwin, and for all Darwinists since, came when the
mechanism behind those changes had to be explained.
Because Darwins era was only beginning to understand cellular function
(Gregor Mendels treatise on genetics did not appear until 1865),
Darwin proposed a system of gradual physiological improvements due to
small, discreet advantages that would accrue to the best-adapted
progeny (his famous survival of the fittest) among all living things
(a bit stronger, a bit swifter, a bit hardier), making them subtly
different from their parents and producing offspring with similar
advantages accruing in their physiological makeup. When enough small
changes had compounded themselves through enough generations ....
voila! A new species would have emerged, sexually incompatible with
the original parent stock, yet inexorably linked to it by a common
physiological heritage.
Once cellular function came to be better understood, particularly the
importance of DNA as the engineer driving the entire train of life, it
was quickly embraced as the fundamental source of change in Darwins
original model. Darwinian evolution, as it came to be called, was
indisputably caused by mutations at the genetic level. Because such
mutations were obvious to early geneticists, and could eventually be
induced and manipulated in their laboratories, it seemed beyond doubt
that positive mutations in DNA sequencing were the key to explaining
evolution. That left neutral mutations exerting no effect, while
negative mutations afflicted only the unlucky individuals who
expressed them but had no lasting impact on a species collective gene
pool.
Darwin's Blackest Box
In 1996 Michael Behe, a biochemistry professor at Lehigh University in
Bethlehem, Pa., published a book called Darwins Black Box. He defined
a black box as any device that functions perfectly well, but whose
inner workings remain mysterious because they cannot be seen or
understood. To Charles Darwin the living cell was an impenetrable
black box whose inner workings he could not even imagine, much less
understand. To scientists today the cell box is no longer quite as
black, but it is still dark enough to leave them with only a faint
understanding of how it works. They know its basic components and the
functions of those components, but they still dont know how all those
pieces fit together to do what cells do--live.
Life is still every bit the profound mystery it was in Darwins day.
Many additional pieces of the puzzle have found their way onto the
table since 1859, but scientists today are not much closer to seeing
the whole picture than Darwin or his cronies. That is an ironic
reality which few modern Darwinists will accept in their own hearts
and minds, much less advertise to the world in general. So they supply
the media with intellectual swill that the media, in turn, unknowingly
palms off as truth, while the scientists edgily cross their fingers
and hold their breath in the hope that someday, maybe even someday
soon, but certainly before the great unwashed get wise to the scam,
they will finally figure out the great secret...they will see into the
heart of the universes blackest box...they will understand how life
actually works, from the first moment of the first creation to
evolution itself.
Shall We Gather At The River?
Darwinists teach and preach that life began spontaneously in a mass of
molecules floating freely in the Earths earliest rivers and seas.
Those molecular precursors somehow formed themselves into organic
compounds that somehow formed themselves into the very first living
organism. This incredible feat of immaculately choreographed
bioengineering was, Darwinists insist, accomplished without the aid of
any outside agency, such as a Prime Mover (what some would call God),
and especially not anything extraterrestrial. It was done using only
the materials at hand on the early Earth, and accomplished solely by
the materials themselves, with a probable assist from a perfectly
timed, perfectly aimed lightning bolt that, in the most serendipitous
moment imaginable, swirled tens of thousands, or even hundreds of
thousands of inanimate molecules into a living entity.
For as glibly as Darwinists have fashioned and promoted this scenario
in schools to this day, the complexity of its mechanics might
challenge the creative skills of a busload of Prime Movers. Countless
lipids have to somehow be coaxed to form a membrane that somehow
surrounds enough strands of DNA to create a cell that can manage lifes
two most basic functions: it must absorb organic and inorganic
compounds in its environment and turn them into proteins, which can
then be converted into energy and excreta; and it must have the
ability to reproduce itself ad infinitum. If all of those varied
factors, each a bona fide miracle in itself, do not occur in the
precise order demanded by all living cells for their tightly
orchestrated, step-by-step development, then the entire process
becomes laughably improbable.
British astronomer Fred Hoyle has offered the classic analogy for this
scenario, stating that its actual likelihood of being true and real
equals that of a tornado sweeping through a junkyard and correctly
assembling a Boeing 747. It did not and could not happen then, just as
it cannot be made to happen now. The very best our biochemists can do
today is construct infinitesimal pieces of the puzzle, leaving them
little nearer to seeing how life truly works than Darwin and his
cohorts 140 years ago. But why? Whats the problem? Havent we cracked
the atom? Havent we flown to the moon? Havent we mapped the ocean
floors? Yes, yes, and yes. But those things were easy by comparison.
Looking For Life In All The Wrong Places
If the Darwinists are so wrong, where are they wrong? What is the
fundamental mistake they are making? It has to do with where they are
looking, which is the cell, inside the cell, and specifically at the
functioning of DNA. Because the twisting double-helix of DNA contains
the instructions for all of lifes processes, the assumption has always
been that disruptions in the patterns of those instructions are the
only logical explanation for how physiological changes at both the
micro (small) and macro (large) level must be created and executed. In
other words, changes in DNA (mutations) must be the engine driving all
aspects of evolutionary change. Nothing else makes sense.
Sensible or not, however, it is wrong. Why? Because in 1984 a group of
British researchers decided to do an experiment utilizing what was
then considered to be a universal truth about genes, handed down from
Gregor Mendel himself: the idea that genes are sexless. Mendel had
postulated that a gene from either parent, whether plant or animal,
was equally useful and effective throughout the lifetime of the
individual possessing it. This was taken as gospel until those British
researchers tried to create mouse embryos carrying either two copies
of father genes or two copies of mother genes. According to Mendels
laws of inheritance, both male and female embryos should have
developed normally.  After all, they had a full complement of genes,
and if genes were indeed sexless they had all they needed to gestate
and thrive.
The researchers were stunned when all of their carefully crafted
embryos were dead within a few days of being transferred to a
surrogate mothers womb. How could it happen? What could have gone so
wrong in a scenario that couldnt go wrong? They were completely
baffled. What they didnt know, and what many refuse to accept even
now, fourteen years later, is that they had unwittingly opened their
own--and their icons--darkest, blackest box. They had ventured into a
region of the cell, and of the functioning of DNA, that they hadnt
imagined was off-limits. By taking that inadvertent journey they ended
up forging an entirely new understanding of Mendelian inheritance,
while driving a stake through the already weakened heart of Darwinian
evolution.
A Time To Live And A Time To Die
Normally, father genes or mother genes control the expression of their
own activity. A father gene might give, for example, the signal for a
crop of head hair to grow--to express itself--and to stop expressing
when the follicles had been constructed in their proper places in the
scalp. The cessation of the expressing process is called methylation,
which is the surrounding of expressing genes with clusters of
chemicals that shut them off (picture the cap being put back on a
toothpaste tube). In the same way, a mother gene might express a pair
of eyes and then, when they were completed, methylate the genes growth
processes into inactivity.
Until 1984, it was believed that all genetic function operated the
same way. If a gene or suite of genes came from Dads side of the
mating process, then those genes managed their own affairs from birth
until death. And the same held true for genes coming from Moms side of
the mating. But certain genes turned out to exhibit radical
differences, depending on whose side of the mating process they came
from. When the female mouse embryos died, it was found that genes
vital to their growth had inexplicably never been turned on at all,
while still others were never turned off (methylated) and spiraled
unchecked into cancers. Even more baffling, the fatal processes in the
all-male embryos were entirely different from those in the
all-females. The embryos were dying for reasons that were clearly
sex-biased. What could it possibly mean?
Imprinted genes were found to be the culprit. Imprinted genes, it
turned out, could be expressed by either parent and, incredibly,
methylated by the other parent! Somehow, someway, by means not clearly
imagined, much less understood, genes from one parent had the ability
to independently begin or end processes that were critical to the
lives of forming embryos. In the world of genetics as it had always
been perceived, that was impossible. Only a localized (sexless) gene
should be able to control its own destiny or purpose, not a separate
gene from an entirely different parent. Cooperating genes broke all
the rules of physical inheritance that had been written by Gregor
Mendel. Yet imprinted genes do, in fact, disregard Mendels rules; and
by doing so they provide the above mentioned stake that will
inevitably be driven through the heart of classic Darwinian
evolution.
Life's Blueprint Writ Wrong
So far geneticists have identified about 20 imprinted genes embedded
within the 80,000 to 100,000 believed to comprise the entire human
genome. New ones are discovered on a regular basis, with many
geneticists predicting the final tally will reach hundreds, while
others suspect the total might reach into the thousands.  But whether
hundreds or thousands, any imprinted genes at all means that classic
Darwinism can no longer count on mutations in DNA as a plausible
mechanism for fundamental physical change.
For mutations to be acceptable as the engine of Darwinian change, they
have to be able to occur in isolation and then, as stated earlier,
pass themselves intact to succeeding generations. By definition that
means they have to be able to regulate their own functions, both to
express and to methylate their genetic processes.  Whenever a trait
mutates, whether a longer limb, a stronger muscle, or a more efficient
organ, it should pass into the gene pool whole and complete, not half
of it being expressed from the male side of a pairing and half from
the female side.  Why? Because both parents would have to mutate in
complementary ways at the same time to the same degree...and then they
would have to find each other and mate in order to have even a chance
to pass the mutation on!
Natural mutations, while statistically rare, are clearly documented.
They can be neutral, negative, or positive. So when geneticists
contend that isolated mutations in DNA can occur and be passed on to
succeeding generations, they first assume the individual with the
mutation has been fortunate enough to have the correct one out of the
three possibilities. They further assume the individual survives the
brutal winnowing process Darwin so correctly labeled survival of the
fittest.  But fittest or not, any fledgling animal or plant must
contend with an infinite number of ways to miss the boat to maturity.
Assuming that passage is safe, the lucky individual with the positive
mutation has to get lucky several more times to produce enough
offspring so that at least a few of them possess his or her positive
mutation and also survive to maturity to pass it along. It is a series
of events that, taken altogether, are extremely unlikely but at least
they are feasible, and they do, in fact, happen.
Imprinted genes, however, neatly sever those threads of feasibility by
making it literally impossible for any mutation, positive or
otherwise, to effect more than the individual expressing it. There is
certainly no way for it to work its way into a gene pool regulated by
imprinted genes. Why? For the reasons just stated above: for a
mutation to be implemented, it must be beneficial and it must be
paired with a similar change in a member of the opposite sex. Thus, if
only a handful of genes are capable of being turned on and off by
different parents, then Darwinian evolution has no place in the grand
scheme of life on Earth. Imprinting shoves Darwinists well beyond any
hope of feasibility, to a region of DNA where change is incapable of
being positive.
Timing Really Is Everything
What we are really talking about with imprinting processes is timing,
the most exquisite and incomprehensible faculty any gene possesses. By
knowing when--and being able--to turn on and off the millions to
billions of biological processes that create and sustain living
organisms, genes control the switches that control life itself. In
effect, whatever controls the timing switches controls the organism.
If, for example, only one methyl group misses its turn-off signal on
an expressing gene, the resultant non-stop expressing will lead to
cellular overproduction and, ultimately, cancer. Conversely, if only
one gene fails to express when it should, at the very least a
seriously negative event has occurred, and at worst the organism has
suffered a catastrophe that will terminate its life.
More important than this, however, is that timing sequences cannot be
altered in any way, shape, or form that will not be detrimental to
offspring. In other words, the evolution of a timing sequence in the
development of an embryo or a growing offspring simply cannot be
favorable in the Darwinian sense. Why?  Because in terms of results it
is already perfect. And how do we know it is perfect? Because the
parents both reached maturity. What is so special about their reaching
maturity? It means their own timing sequences performed perfectly in
their own embryos, with their initial sperm and egg differentiating in
millions of ways to become their bodies. (In plants the same principle
holds true).  Then their growing period developed perfectly, with its
millions of different timing events leading to their limbs and organs
growing to their proper sizes and carrying on their proper functions.
Any alteration of that perfection can be, and nearly always is,
devastating. In golf a putt drops or it doesnt. In timing sequences,
they are started and stopped precisely, or not. There is no room for
error or improvement (no third condition called better). Thus, no
genetic alteration to timing can create the faster legs, larger horns,
sharper teeth, etc., called for by Darwins theory of piecemeal change.
This is why gills cannot become lungs, why fins cannot become limbs,
why scales cannot become fur or skin. No single timing mechanism can
evolve without altering the perfection that has been passed to
offspring by parents through untold generations.
A good analogy is the building of a house. We start with a blueprint.
Analogize this with the genetic blueprint provided by DNA. The former
outlines the physical materials that go into a house: wood, nails,
sheetrock, doors, etc. The latter outlines the physical materials that
go into creating a body: blood, bones, skin, hair, etc. Next, we bring
in the carpenters who will build the house. It is they who, following
our carefully drawn blueprint, will determine everything that will be
done to create our house. More importantly, they will determine when
all parts of the house will be built, when any particular process will
start and when it will stop.  They will build the floor before the
walls, the walls before the roof, etc.
Building our house is thus a two-part project: what to build, and how
and when to build it. It is the same with living organisms, whose
carpenter genes (the mysterious timing mechanisms that turn growth
processes on and off) determine their success. Now it becomes easy to
understand Darwins fundamental error.  While examining the widely
varied houses of living organisms, he saw no trace of the invisible
carpenters who have the decisive hand in their creation. Therefore,
his theory did not--and so far cannot--account for the fact that
carpenter genes invariably prohibit alterations.
If I Had A Hammer
As with a house, DNA contains or provides everything necessary to
create a particular organism, whether animal or plant. DNA has the
further capacity to define and manufacture the physiological materials
needed to create the entirety of the organism, precisely when they are
needed and to the exact degree they are needed. And, perhaps most
wondrous of all, DNA contains the ineffable carpenter genes that
determine when each phase of the organisms construction will begin and
end. Any organisms parents will have passed to it a set of DNA
blueprints of what to build and how to build it, which are nearly
always perfect with respect to timing, but allowing slight variations
in what is built. On the occasions when faulty timing does lead to
tragedy, the imperfections are due to sperm-egg misconnects, or
molecular anomalies in DNA caused by radiation or chemicals.
Where classic Darwinian evolution completely breaks down is in not
allowing carpenter genes to exist separately from end results.
Darwinism contends that when any aspect of an organisms materials
change (i.e., a mutation in some strand of DNA which changes some
aspect of physical structure), that organisms carpenter genes smoothly
accommodate the change (alter the blueprint) by adjusting the timing
sequences (beginning and end) of that structures development. This is
not reality. A Watusis thighbone takes just as long to form as a
Pygmys thighbone (about 18 years), so only the end results--their
respective sizes--have changed, not their timing processes. This is
one reason why all human beings can so easily interbreed, even the
unlikely combination of Watusis and Pygmies. Our vast array of
underlying genetic timing mechanisms, including our imprinted genes,
have been handed down intact (unevolved!) since the beginning of our
existence as a species.
Thus, what is built can be slowly, gradually altered; how it is built
cannot. This obvious fact...this undeniable truth...has the most
profound implications: In the carpenter genes of successful organisms,
no improvement is possible!  And without improvement, via Darwinian
change, how could they have evolved?  Not just into something from
nothing, but into millions of interlocking, tightly sequenced commands
that smoothly mesh over extended periods as organisms develop from
embryo to birth to sexual maturity? The short answer is, They cant.
What all this means, of course, is that everything we think we know
about how life develops on Earth is flatly wrong. It means all of our
experts are totally mistaken when they tell us that Darwins theory of
gradual mutations has led to the development of all species of plants
and animals on the planet. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Darwinism cannot work now, it has never been able to work, and the
time has come for its supporters to stop their intellectual posturing
and admit they need to go back to their drawing boards to seek a more
plausible explanation for what is surely lifes greatest single
mystery.

THE END