Stem cell research, Evil, or misunderstood friend?

I have heard quite a bit about stem cell research recently and I would like to share some of the things that I have found in my own research.

The first thing I would like to cover is what stem cells are

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/stem%20cell

A stem cell is simply a cell that has not “decided” what it wants to be yet. These are most easily found in embryos, because it is an “unmade” child, it has a host of stem cells that will eventually become, legs, arms, arteries, capillaries, and other such things.

Now alot of Xians that I hear talk about stem cell research say that it is a terrible decision and a blasphemy and we are “playing God”, I agree with this to an extent. However I find that 9 times out of 10, they only know of Embryonic Stem Cell Research, that is, taking the stem cells from a human embryo to form organs or such that are needed by patients in hospitals and elsewhere. This involves removing the stem cells from an embryo and inevitably killing the embryo. I do not in the slightest agree with embryonic stem cell research however there is yet another type that is less known in the world of stem cell publicity.

Adult stem cell research. In other words the stem cells a more mature human body that has already formed and gotten all of the body parts that are needed, has stem cells in it still. In the blood of humans there are stem cells, In umbilical chords, there are stem cells, in Placenta’s there are stem cells. The human body is ripe with stem cells, in more places than embryos, and in much safer ways, than embryotic stem cells.

This is my view of the facts about stem cell research, and in the long run, I would deffinitely say that stem cell research, is a Misunderstood friend. !)avid

Abortion Pt.2

I was lying in my bed last night when a thought struck me and made most of my night devoid of sleep as I thought it out. Abortion is considered humane because the fetus is not “alive yet” but just what is a fetus? It is a mass of cells that takes in food and such to sustain and further itself. Now, scientists and such will tell you that a fetus is not “alive” so its okay for us to abort it, However that same scientist will most likely tell you that all human LIFE began with a single celled organism. But if the fetus(mass of cells) is not alive then how is an amoeba alive? an amoeba is a small single celled organism, that takes in nourishment to sustain/further itself. Its the definition of life, when a woman has a miscarriage in the fetal stages of her baby people still say the baby DIED, if a man pushes his wife down the stairs and kills the unborn child he can be charged with MURDER. Maybe its just me but I fail to see the logic behind this train of thought. You cant have DEATH without LIFE, you cant have MURDER without LIFE!!! So I once again ask, how is a fetus not alive? It fits all the descriptions of a living organism, so tell me what qualifies the fetus to be considered just a “mass of cells and tissue” and when does the life process begin in it? Cause lets face it, if you have an inanimant mass of cells and tissue and you try to push nourishment into it, then its not going to form a human being, you have to have LIVING cells and LIVING tissue, to form a LIVING human child…… hmm I guess I kinda rambled there for a bit, ohh well I think last night was worth it :). !)avid

Miller/Urey experiment. Fact or Fraud?

The Miller experiment, (more commonly known as the Miller/Urey experiment due to the great influence on Miller by his college professor Urey), is often attributed as one of the best evidences for the evolution of man in history. The experiment in essence brought about Amino acids(one of the building blocks of human life) in a “early earth” environment. I will use this post to bring to light some of the problems with the Miller experiment and expose it for what it is.

Parameters

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/molecular_biology_09.html

The parameters of the Miller/Urey experiment were to find out if life could have spontaneously generated in an early earth environment, he simulated what was thought to be the atmosphere of the early earth. This environment was composed with high levels of Ammonium, Hydrogen, Methane, and Water vapor. Any chemist worth his weight will tell you that these gasses do not react under natural circumstances, so in order to make up for this Miller added electrical current to the apparatus.(The early earth was thought to have been under constant bombardment by electrical storms at this point in time).

Now while Millers concotion did indeed make random amino acids in a jar, and evolutionists used that to mean that life could spontaniously generate, Millers experiment had several flaws.

Misconceptions.

Millers experiment formed 3 of 20 amino acids necessary for human life, however, a portion of the experiment commonly left out of the text books is how he got them.

Miller used a contraption called a cold trap

“In vacuum applications, a cold trap is a device that condenses all vapors except the permanent gases into a liquid or solid. The most common objective is to prevent vapors from contaminating a vacuum pump. Cold traps also refer to the application of cooled surfaces or baffles to prevent oil vapours from flowing from a pump and into a chamber. In such a case, a baffle or a section of pipe containing a number of cooled vanes, will be attached to the inlet of an existing pumping system. By cooling the baffle, either with a cryogen such as liquid nitrogen, or by use of an electrically driven Peltier element, oil vapour molecules that strike the baffle vanes will condense and thus be removed from the pumped cavity.”

In essence, Miller’s experimental atmosphere was not capable of sustaining the amino acids for an extended period of time. Miller knew this because in his other attempts without the cold trap(which are conviniently not oft mentioned) Miller could not successfuly make the amino acids. He was only able to sustain the amino acids by removing them from his concoction as soon as they were created by the use of the cold trap. I.E.) Using liquid nitrogen, Miller used the cold trap to freeze the amino acids as soon as they were created and removed them from his apparatus thru a vacuum.

This is a strong argument against Miller’s case considering as how he couldnt keep his amino acids alive without taking them out of his concoction.

 Recently scientists have decided that the early environment was not the one which Miller used, they also state that the early earth was not bombarded with lightning as we had once thought. However they still find a way to assert that even if you changed around the atmosphere and removed the constant electrical current, you would still get some form of life building material.

Summary

So far I have not heard of a single successful experiment to create and sustain amino acids in the more realistic early earth environment. So with the flaws that have been found in the Miller/Urey experiment, I would think it is safe to say that we cant make life in a jar with gas and electricity.

!)avid. 

Is evolution the only science?

Over the past 2 or 3 years I have started to delve into the amazing world of scientific research. Soon afterwards I was bombarded with the statement that Faith and Science can not coexist. I was told very bluntly that Evolution is accepted science and that Creation science is a bunch of ignorant people hanging on to a invalid belief. I was told that there was very little evidence to support the creationist point of view and that there was insurmountable evidence( though I was very rarely given any) for Evolution. However I would like to say that evolution is exaclty what it is called a Theory. Here I will point out the strongest arguments for both sides of this debate and let you make your own decisions. Also I would like to make the point that Evolution is NOT a theory on the origin of life, as most people commonly misunderstand, evolution is a theory of improvement within a species on a small and large scale.

 Evolution Support.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/lenski.html

The link that I have provided describes Evolution as both Fact and Theory.The author of this article Richard Lenski(http://www.msu.edu/~mic/faculty/lenski.htm) is a distinguished professor at Michigan State university. Evolution relies heavily on mutations being preserved thru a succesive number of reproductions and that the mutation will be beneficial to the recipient. 

“Genetic variation arises through two processes, mutation and recombination. Mutation occurs when DNA is imperfectly copied during replication, leading to a difference between a parent’s gene and that of its offspring. Some mutations affect only one bit in the DNA; others produce rearrangements of large blocks of DNA.” 

Recombination(as mentioned in the clip above) is found in reproduction. When the genetic code for both parents is instilled in the child and “shuffled” around to produce a new combination of genetic code.

Evidence for evolution is generally the same no matter which evolutionist you ask

“Evidence from fossils. Based on myriad similarities and differences between living species, evolutionary biology makes predictions about the features of ancestral forms. For example, numerous features indicate that birds are derived from reptilian ancestors. By contrast, these data reject the possibility that birds were derived from other groups, such as flying insects. Scientists have discovered fossil birds with feathers and legs like modern birds, but which also have teeth, clawed digits on their forelimbs, and a tailbone like their reptilian ancestors. Fossils are especially important evidence for evolution because, with little effort, each of us can use our eyes and minds to observe and interpret the dinosaur and other ancient fossils in public museums.” 

The animal reffered to as havin teeth, clawed digits on its forelimbs, and a tailbone is the archaeopteryx.   First found in London the archaeopteryx was thought to be the holy grail of the evolutionary world, claiming that they had finally found a missing link.

Evidence from genetics. The genomes of all organisms contain overwhelming evidence for evolution. All living species share the same basic mechanism of heredity using DNA (or RNA in some viruses) to encode genes that are passed from parent to offspring, and which are transcribed and translated into proteins during each organism’s life. Using DNA sequences, biologists quantify the genetic similarities and differences among species, in order to determine which species are more closely related to one another and which are more distantly related. In doing so, biologists use essentially the same evidence and logic used to determine paternity in lawsuits. The pattern of genetic relatedness between all species indicates a branching tree that implies divergence from a common ancestor. Within this tree of life, there are also occasional reticulations where two branches fuse, rather than separate. (For example, mitochondria are organelles found in the cells of plants and animals. Mitochondria have their own genes, which are more similar to genes in bacteria than to genes on the chromosomes in the cell nucleus. Thus, one of our distant ancestors arose from a symbiosis of two different cell types.) The genetic similarity between species, which exists by virtue of evolution from the same ancestral form, is an essential fact that underlies biomedical research. This similarity allows us to begin to understand the effects of our own genes by conducting research on genes from other species. For example, genes that control the process of DNA repair in bacteria, flies, and mice have been discovered to influence certain cancers in humans. These findings also suggest strategies for intervention that can be explored in other species before testing on humans. 

The next field of evidence for evolution falls under genetics, to summarize the statements made in the paragraph above. There are cells that are in plants and animals as well as animals and humans, therefore if you follow logic then there must have been some point in which those three groups intersected at a point to split off and make different things.

 Evolution in action. Evolutionary change continues to this day, and it will proceed so long as life itself exists. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment. In the case of HIV, which causes AIDS, significant viral evolution occurs within the course of infection of a single patient, and this rapid evolution enables the virus to evade the immune system. Many agricultural pests have evolved resistance to chemicals that farmers have used for only a few decades. As we work to control diseases and pests, the responsible organisms have been evolving to escape our controls. Moreover, scientists can perform experiments to study evolution in real time, just as experiments are used to observe dynamic processes in physics, chemistry, and other branches of biology. To study evolution in action, scientists use organisms like bacteria and fruitflies that reproduce quickly, so they can see changes that require many generations. 

The third evidence is that, viruses and such today are evolving to become resillient even immune to many antibiotics on the market today. This exemplifies Microevolution and lays out evidence that if it is happening now then it must have been happening before.

Creation evidence

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n1/heavens-declare-young-solar-system

The evidence for creation in the modern day really turns into the lack of evidence for evolution. Most Creationists that begin debating with evolutionists end up on the defensive attempting to refute the evolutionary evidence. For instance

“Evidence from fossils. Based on myriad similarities and differences between living species, evolutionary biology makes predictions about the features of ancestral forms. For example, numerous features indicate that birds are derived from reptilian ancestors. By contrast, these data reject the possibility that birds were derived from other groups, such as flying insects. Scientists have discovered fossil birds with feathers and legs like modern birds, but which also have teeth, clawed digits on their forelimbs, and a tailbone like their reptilian ancestors. Fossils are especially important evidence for evolution because, with little effort, each of us can use our eyes and minds to observe and interpret the dinosaur and other ancient fossils in public museums.” 

The archaeopteryx fossil that is used as support for evolution and is a claimed missing link, is claimed to be the missing link between modern birds, because it posesses claws and a “reptilian tail”. Evolutionists make the claim that this would have been the link between the Dromaeosaur and the bird phylum. Evolutionists claim that this would have been at best a bird that could glide low to the ground, however under the scrutiny of research it is seen that there are small bumps along the bones of the fossil. These bumps are found on modern birds as well as the attatchment point of feathers, however under DNA research the bird has been found to have flight feathers similar to modern birds. Most evolutionists leave this out because it does not provide for a transitional animal it makes two clearly defined species. My conclusion on the Archaeopteryx is that was indeed and early bird, However it was nothing more than that. A bird, A nesting egg laying, flying BIRD.

Now I would like to clear up a common misconception, I often hear my fellow creationists say that evolution is wrong, so I ask “Is all evolution wrong?” I am usually responded to with an “OF COURSE!”. However there are two types of evolution, one of which is a ligitimate scientifically observed phenomonon. That is Micro Evolution, or evolution on a cellular scale, this can be demonstrated by the ability of a virus to adapt to medications and become  resistant. The false portion of the Evolutionary chain is Macro Evolution, or evolution on a massive scale, this is where xians draw up their differences with evolutionists, Because while micro evolution is an observable fact, Macro evolution is nothing more than scientific guesswork and theory. Evolution in action. Evolutionary change continues to this day, and it will proceed so long as life itself exists. In recent years, many bacterial pathogens have evolved resistance to antibiotics used to cure infections, thereby requiring the development of new and more costly treatments. In some frightening cases, bacteria have evolved resistance to every available antibiotic, so there is no longer any effective treatment. In the case of HIV, which causes AIDS, significant viral evolution occurs within the course of infection of a single patient, and this rapid evolution enables the virus to evade the immune system. Many agricultural pests have evolved resistance to chemicals that farmers have used for only a few decades. As we work to control diseases and pests, the responsible organisms have been evolving to escape our controls. Moreover, scientists can perform experiments to study evolution in real time, just as experiments are used to observe dynamic processes in physics, chemistry, and other branches of biology. To study evolution in action, scientists use organisms like bacteria and fruitflies that reproduce quickly, so they can see changes that require many generations. 

The third evidence is that, viruses and such today are evolving to become resillient even immune to many antibiotics on the market today. This exemplifies Microevolution and lays out evidence that if it is happening now then it must have been happening before.

 Since I have begun to delve into the  evolution debate I have heard that that every “respectable” scientist supports the theory of evolution. I was rather skeptical at this statement and began to look into this for myself, it was then that I discovered the “Scientific Dissent from Darwinism”

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/jul/05072204.html

It is a list of aproximately 400 very respectable scientists include a Nobel Prize nominee, that have stated that they think that Darwinism is false.

Summary.

In conclusion I believe that I am far more inclined to lean toward the creationist side of this debate, However I would strongly encourage you to look into it yourself and find your own sources to get evidence from and then form your opinion. If you have any questions Classmates you know where I am, and Others you can post them on this blog.

!)avid