23 Things You May Not Care About Tornadoes!
   by Mark Boardman

Tornado Fact 1. The deadliest ever tornado was the 'Tri-State' tornado that passed through Missouri, Illinois and Indiana on March 18th 1925. During its 3½ hour life this tornado killed 695 people along its 219 mile path.

Tornado Fact 2. Tornadoes are measured and rated using the Fujita scale.

Tornado Fact 3. Tornadoes tend to occur in mid-latitudes, and as they are restricted to land masses this means mainly in the northern hemisphere

What Scientific Proof Lies Behind Evolution?   by Jerry Boone

Homology and Bio-Chemical Similarities

Do biological and bio-chemical similarities necessarily mean common ancestors? What else could it mean?

Homology and bio-chemical similarities are really the same argument. Both allege that similar features in different organisms are due to inheritance from a common ancestor. Evolutionists use a number of studies to identify matching traits.

Homology examines similarities of bone structures from different animals. DNA hybridization evaluates the closeness of species relationship by how many DNA strands from different species can be matched.

Electrophoritic analysis show the degree of similarity of proteins from different species. And protein sequencing measures the closeness of relationship by the amount of DNA coding change which is needed to produce the slightly different proteins of different species. One protein sequencing study, for instance, shows there is only one percent difference between chimpanzees and humans.

Forelimbs are the most widely cited example of homology. You may have seen the drawings in school. A human arm is compared bone by bone with forelimbs of whales, dogs, bats, and sometimes a bird wing. After noting how closely they correspond, evolutionists conclude these limbs are based on the same pattern because they evolved from a common ancestor.

More recently, measurable protein and DNA similarities have added more of a scientific punch to the claim. But the argument remains as before. The more similar the form, the closer it is related, and the more recent is the common ancestor.

Based on proteins and DNA studies, evolutionists think that orangutans separated from the man-chimpanzee-gorilla group ten or eleven million years ago. DNA hybridization test indicate gorillas branched away from the man-chimp line eight to ten million years ago. But chimpanzees and humans didn't separate until six or seven million years ago. At any rate, that is what microbiologists believe.

The question is, does similarity necessarily mean relationship? A boat, a plane, and a car are all similar. Each is a means of transportation; each has a type of engine to provide power; each requires fuel; each has a guidance system; each requires a human to make it function; each has an enclosure to protect the passengers; and each has seats for the convenience of the passengers. See the similarities?

But are the boat, plane, and car related? No. They are similar because they were all designed for a similar purpose - transportation. And they all came from the mind of man.

When the Wright brothers first flew at Kitty Hawk, they didn't start from scratch. Engines already existed, seats already existed, and baling wire already existed. Orville and Wilbur did not need to reinvent the wheel. They used all the technology on hand to help build their plane. By the same token, why would we expect the Creator to start from scratch every time he designs a new plant, animal, or human? His proven bio-chemical technology was already at hand.

Many features, proteins and DNA sequences in man are similar to or identical to other primates. We agree. But that doesn't prove man and chimpanzee had a common ancestor. It's just as reasonable to decide that the same Creator made them both.

Many General Motors' cars have a similar look and very similar, often identical, parts under the hood. Certainly, no one claims they descended from a common ancestor. You and I know those cars are so much alike because they originated in the minds of the same designers. It may well be that chimpanzees and man have a lot in common because they too originated in the mind of the same designer.

Embryology

In 1868 Ernst Haeckel, an enthusiastic supporter of evolution, formulated his "fundamental biogenetic law." It states that an embryo goes through stages during which it resembles its ancestry. At one point, the human embryo has a feature resembling fish gills, so we must have had fish in our ancestry, concluded Haeckel.

According to Haeckel, everything in the animal kingdom descended from a gastrula, which is an early stage in most animals embryonic development. He faked evidence to support his claim. Haeckel was caught and admitted that some of his embryonic drawings were forgeries.

Notwithstanding, the gill slit misconception caught on and is still cited as evidence that humans evolved from fish. Although the pouches do superficially resemble fish gills, they have nothing to do with breathing. They are the early states of the lower jaw, ear, and neck including the thyroid and parathyroid glands. It's a feature of embryonic function, not evolution.

What this embryonic claim really proved was just how eager nineteenth century evolutionists were to use any argument, however specious, to further their cause.

Vestigial Organs

Gill slits are just one example of what evolutionists call vestigial organs. The idea is that sometime in the distant past these organs had a purpose, but they are no longer useful. Vestigial organs imply evolution. If man were created, there would be no reason for them. Evolutionists found 180 vestigial organs, most of which were muscles. Only six are still around. The rest are now known to be useful or even essential.

From 180 down to six is a pretty good drop in vestigial organs. Given a few more years, it is reasonable to think we might find functions for the rest of them too. Naturalists no longer stress vestigial organs. They have proved to be an embarrassment.

Lost Functions

Certainly, organs can lose their functions. Wingless insects show up on isolated islands., large flightless birds turn up in Africa, and blind fish and amphibians are found in deep caves. But it is difficult to see any evolutionary gain in the loss of a function. True, the loss of a function does make them different. They are oddities. Their chance of survival cannot be enhanced by the loss. If anything, the blind or flightless creatures are one step closer to extinction.

Bone structures, proteins, and DNA sequences all reveal similarities and differences between species. But none prove evolution anymore than they prove creation. Bear in mind, the same Creator could produce different types of creatures using many of the same biological parts and much of the same bio-chemical technology. Why would he do otherwise?

Embryology was based in a combination of superficial resemblances and faked evidence. What did it prove? Not much, other than at least one nineteenth-century evolutionist was dishonest, and many others were gullible. Human embryos do not have gills; they have pouches which look somewhat like fish gills. Embryology does not prove evolution.

Vestigial organs have steadily diminished over the years. Evolutionists no longer rely on them to support their theory, although they still occasionally turn up in textbooks. Of the original 180 vestigial organs listed, 174 were later found to have functions.

What's the bottom line? Bottom line is: neither evolution nor creationism can be proved by biological similarities, embryology, vestigial organs, or lost functions.

What scientific proof lies behind evolution? Homology, bio-chemical similarities, embryology, vestigial organs, and lost functions, say evolutionists. Let's take a closer look at each of these claims.

RNA Therapy

Better Than Stem Cells? Short Interfering RNA Hold Promise For Dramatic New Treatments    by John Leavitt, Ph.D.

 

I rarely give stock advice. The last time I did was in the summer of 1964 when I read in the newspaper that a new company called ComSat was having an IPO in September. I considered this, perhaps naively, a sure thing. Yet being in my first job I had no money to invest. So, I decided to watch this stock with the fantasy of having invested $1,000 ($6,548 in today's dollars). My plan was to buy at the IPO price of $10 a share and then sell just before the launch of the first commercial communications satellite, just in case the launch failed. The stock rose meteorically from $10 per share to $80 (the launch did not fail), then the stock split and rose again to more than $80 per share. I made about $240,000 from my $1,000 fantasy investment, equivalent to $1.5 million today.

The reason I bring this up is that recently, I was fortunate to attend a small meeting in Boston that focused on developments in the seemingly esoteric field of siRNA or "short interfering RNA" used to silence genes. The promise of this technology has rightfully created a significant buzz in the scientific and investment communities over for the last two to three years. And as I left this meeting, it occurred to me that in the next 10 to 20 years, siRNA, also called "RNAi", will probably dominate drug development, with many successful drugs currently targeting specific proteins, like Genentech's Herceptin and Imclone's Erbitux, being replaced by RNAi-based drugs. Furthermore, many disease-causing proteins thought to be "undrugable", like the metastatic biomarker L-plastin for colon, breast, melanoma, prostate, and bladder cancer, could now be targeted by RNAi drugs.

Businesses Are Being Built Around siRNA

Andrew Fire, of Stanford, and Craig Mello, at the University of Massachusetts, discovered "gene silencing by double-stranded RNA" in 1998, earning them the 2006 Nobel Prize in Medicine. In 2001 companies started forming around RNAi. One of them, Alnylam Pharmaceuticals filed its S-1 registration with the SEC in February 2004, claiming $23,000 in cash assets and creating 3.2 million shares worth 28 cents each. Two years later, Alnylam went public with stock selling at $7.50 per share after an unprecedented short start-up time. Alnylam's shares were selling on NASDAQ at around $16 per share in early July after hitting a 52-week high of $24.46 last December. By December or perhaps early winter, Alnylam will announce the outcome of its Phase II clinical trial on their lead product for treating the infant respiratory disease caused by Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV infections). Alnylam has multiple collaborations funded by Merck, and about 20 pipeline products. At the same time Merck bought Sirna Therapeutics, another RNAi company with strong IP for this technology. During the last year, in order to acquire additional RNAi-relevant IP, Hoffmann-La Roche bought 454, Sigma Chemicals bought Proligo, Alnylam bought Ribopharma, Acuity Pharmaceuticals merged with two other companies to form Opko, Dharmacon became part of Thermo-Fisher Scientific, and RXi Pharmaceuticals was spawned by CytRx. Also Pfizer, GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Abbott Labs have started R&D programs around RNAi.

Santaris Pharma, a Danish company formed in 2003, has a novel method for making and stabilizing RNAi and drug products in Phase II clinical development. Santaris is strategically partnered through licensing agreements with Enzon, a leading clinical research organization that is conducting clinical trials in the U.S. for many Santaris' drug candidates. Santaris has completed Phase I/II clinical trials in Denmark, France, the U.K. and the U.S. for an RNAi drug for treating chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL) and Phase I trials for a second product treating renal and colon carcinoma and multiple myeloma. The CLL product should compete favorably with Genta's BCL-2 antisense (RNA) product in development for over a decade, through phase III clinical development, and in pre-registration for CLL and malignant melanoma.

As an aside, it's worth noting that several of these companies are Nerac clients.

How RNAi works

RNAi therapy is not like stem cell therapy, which will take decades to develop. Approval of the first RNAi drugs is expected in three to five years. This is because stem cell therapy is complex and the science is still in its infancy. By contrast RNAi is well developed because of the advanced understanding of genetics and gene expression. In fact RNAi will be used to make stem cell therapy work.

The 1993 discovery of microRNA, a natural mechanism of gene regulation in all cells, accelerated understanding of how RNAi works. SiRNA is an exogenous synthetic version of the natural endogenous microRNA that takes advantage of the cellular machinery that normally processes and mediates the function of microRNA. Micro- or siRNA (RNAi) is targeted to inhibit a specific counterpart transcript (messenger RNA) that serves as a template for synthesis of an individual protein, the natural process of gene expression. RNAi is processed by a ribonuclease enzyme that binds to a larger precursor siRNA. The enzyme processes siRNA into a 21-nucleotide base-pair double stranded molecule. The specificity of RNAi is governed both by its 'complimentarity' to a particular messenger RNA nucleic acid sequence and also by a complex of proteins whose function is to mediate the binding of the RNAi to a target sequence on the messenger RNA, usually in the 3'-noncoding region of the messenger RNA. This binding event leads to a shut-down in synthesis of the protein encoded by the messenger RNA (called "knock-down").

There is currently little mystery about how to design siRNA molecules and synthesize them, as this method is aided by readily available algorithms. In fact, Todd Woolf, CEO & President of RXi Pharmaceuticals, says, "Weeks instead of years to lead compounds." This finely tunable technique of RNAi knock-down is also currently used in many academic research labs.

Finally, many studies have been completed including Phase I clinical trials that indicate the siRNA is essentially non-toxic. Conventional drugs have always required the balancing of efficacious doses with consideration of the drug's negative side-effects.

RNAi's Dramatic Performance in Preclinical Studies

Several companies and labs have shown siRNA conjugated with cholesterol or other lipid carriers will attach to cholesterol carrier proteins in the blood and transport to the liver rather than being excreted. If an siRNA is used that knocks down an enzyme involved in cholesterol production by the liver, then serum cholesterol levels can be diminished in mice by 30 to 40 percent without diminishing the good cholesterol (HDL) levels. The blockbuster statin drugs like Lipitor, which are well known to produce toxic side-effects in the liver, also reduce cholesterol levels in the blood by about 30 to 40 percent. In the mouse model, the cholesterol-reducing effects of one treatment with siRNA lasts three to four weeks.

In a mouse model for intestinal adenomatous polyposis, the mice develop a high density of benign polyps that ultimately block the intestines, subsequently leading to death. In humans, such polyps are precursors to malignant colon cancer. Johannes Fruehauf of Cequent Pharmaceuticals and Harvard Medical School described a novel method for delivering siRNA to the intestinal tract which targeted beta-catenin synthesized by polyp cells. Increased expression of beta-catenin is associated with proliferation of polyp cells but not by itself in the conversion of benign polyps to malignancy. Cequent has demonstrated that bacteria, such as E. coli, carrying about 100 copies of recombinant siRNA in a plasmid vector, can simply be fed to polyposis mice whose intestines are clogged with polyps. Administration of these bacteria containing the siRNA copies killed the polyps and cleared up the problem completely; the histopathology pictures established clearly that the intestines were cleansed of the polyps. The explanation for this efficacy is that thousands of these bacteria were engulfed by the polyp cells by the natural process of endocytosis. The bacteria were dissolved in the endosomes, the plasmids carrying the siRNA insert were fragmented, and the liberated siRNA inhibited beta-catenin synthesis in the polyps. This last step causes the polyps to self-destruct by the natural mechanism of apoptosis, or programmed cell death.

The prospect for siRNA as a therapy seems unlimited in that any and every gene can become a target for this therapy. Before siRNA, many potential disease targets were considered "undrugable," meaning that virtually every disease can be considered for siRNA therapy, including all forms of cancer, metabolic diseases like diabetes, and cardiovascular disease. One speaker at the meeting predicted that when the first siRNA proved its efficacy in a Phase III clinical trial, this event would lead to an explosion of interest in siRNA by Big Pharma and the investment community. It seems inevitable that this will happen in the not too distant future.

About the Author
Dr. John Leavitt is an analyst for Tolland, Conn.-based Nerac Inc., a research and advisory firm for companies developing innovative products and technologies. He is an expert in the biotechnology fields of diagnosis and treatment of human diseases, genetics, and cell and molecular biology. For information, please visit www.nerac.com.

Homo Habilis and Associates   by Jerry Boone

Dryopithecines - Lived 15 to 20 million years ago in Europe, Asia, and Africa.

Mary Leakey found and named "Proconsul africanus" in 1948. They are thought to be forest dwellers. Their teeth are ape-like -small, with canines sharp and projecting. Probably dryopithecines walked in a fashion similar to monkeys on the top of branches. Manny different species have been discovered. It's impossible to tell how they were related.

The evidence is very slim, but some think dryopithecines could be ancestors of both ape and man. The grinding surface patterns on the teeth could theoretically lead to humans and apes. Other authorities claim this is very questionable because of dryopithecines predominately monkey-like characteristics.

Ramapithecines - Lived 8 to 14 million years ago in Africa, Asia, and Europe.

Teeth and jaw fragments were the only fossils known until 1977 when a complete skull was located. Richard Leakey divides the fossils into three groups: Ramapithecus - the smallest group, individuals probably weighed 45 pounds. Sivapithecus - similar to ramapithecus but larger. Gigantopithecus - as the name implies, they were much larger.

Fragments of a Ramapithecus jaw bone were reconstructed, and it was thought to have a parabolic (curve-shaped) dental pattern. That plus the relative size of its canine and other teeth led the experts to believe Ramapithecus might be an ancestor of humans.

During the 1970's, several paleontologists took another look at the reconstructed jaw. Something seemed out of place. They rearranged it, and the tooth row came out much the same as those of other Miocene apes, not curved as in humans. Later discoveries proved the square ape jaw alignment correct. Authorities concluded Ramapithecus was more closely related to the orangutan than to man.

Australopithecus afarensis - Lived between 3 to 4 million years ago in north, south, and east Africa. Height: 3.5 to 4 feet; Weight: 55 to 120 pounds; Head: Described variously as the size and shape of a small female gorilla or like that of a chimpanzee; Brain: 500 cubic centimeters, comparable to either chimpanzee or gorilla, about one-third the size of modern human.

In 1974, Donald Johanson found a 40 percent complete skeleton of a 3.2 million year old afarensis which he named Lucy after the Beetles' hit "Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds." Johanson first classified her in the genus Homo. By 1979, he decided the fossil was too "primitive" and required a classification of her own.

Johanson said that from the neck up Lucy was a chimpanzee, but from the waist down, human. Since then, however, details have surfaced about Lucy's anatomy which show her features are quite a bit different from human's.

Her wide sacrum and shallow pelvis allowed only a small birth canal which would restrict her newborn infant's brain to no larger than a chimpanzee's infant brain. Lucy's hands and feet were missing. Fortunately, bones from other afarensis have by and large filled in the gaps.

They reveal long curved fingers and toes, not as long as modern apes, but longer than human's. Likewise, Lucy's upper arms were 84 percent as long as her thigh bone. The human ratio is 72; chimpanzees, 110; and the most acrobatic ape of all - the gibbon has a ratio of 130. Long fingers and toes plus long arms and short legs all suggest afarensis was more at home in the trees than modern humans, but less attached to trees than either chimpanzees or gibbons.

What really makes afarensis interesting to paleontologists is Johanson's claim that Lucy was bipedal. He thinks that this small ape type of creature walked about very much like you and me.

Whether Lucy walked upright in the manner of Homo sapiens is still a matter of controversy in the academic community. Johanson claims that the shape of afarensis' foot and heel shows that it spends most of its time on the ground. And the heel was large enough that afarensis could support its weight on its feet. Lucy would not need to lean forward like a chimpanzee and place most of her weight on her knuckles.

The second reason for believing Lucy walked erectly was a small bone discovered twenty-six feet below the skeleton. Johanson assumes it is part of Lucy. The bone is the top portion of a femur with two bony bumps, or condyles, on the end. He says they look very much like the condyles on a human. Chimpanzee condyles are shorter and rounder. Moreover, the hip joint and the thighbone form a downward and inward slant which is a distinctive feature of a two-legged walker.

Unfortunately, the right half of Lucy's pelvis was missing. The left was bent out of shape and shattered into forty pieces. Anthropologist Owin Lovejoy pieced it back together and made laboratory 'corrections" on the distorted pelvis. When reconstructed, it became wider and more bowl shaped like a human pelvis. Johanson claimed this as further evidence of Lucy's bipedalism.

Experts on the other side accept Johanson's view that afarensis walked on two legs. They just say Lucy probably walked in a bent-hip, bent-kneed fashion of a bipedal chimpanzee. Lucy and her fellow afarensis are adapted for trees say these skeptics. Support for their position came in 1990 when the top of an afarensis upper arm was discovered. The pronounced ridges on the bone left little doubt that these creatures had good upper body strength. That plus their long toes, fingers, and arms meant they were well equipped for life in the trees.

Part of their reason for thinking Lucy a rather clumsy biped comes from measurements taken from a cast of Lucy's unrestored pelvis. Archaeologists from Stony Brook (State University New York) viewed the evidence before Lovejoy's rearrangement of the pelvis. Evidently, Lovejoy could not convince them with his reconstruction. The debate continues.

Does it really matter if she did walk upright? Biologist Michael Pitman says that the mountain gorilla from Zaire has feet that resemble those of humans. "Its arms are not too long nor its legs too short - a young gorilla can rear up and walk in a human way resting on the sole on its foot rather than the side." And they spend about 80 percent of their time on the ground. But no one claims the Zaire gorilla is human.

 

Other Characteristics

Afarensis show dramatic differences in overall body size. Johanson interprets this as just the difference between male and female. Richard Leakey thinks there's more to it than that. Some afarensis weigh 55 pounds, others weigh in at 120. Leakey concludes that the weight difference is too great to be explained by sexual differences. He says we are probably looking at two separate species.

Australopithecus afarensis lived for almost a million years remaining remarkably similar for the entire period. It's brain never evolved in size. It never became more human.

No tools have ever been associated with afarensis or any of the other australopithecines.

What can we say of Australopithecus afarensis? Was it an ape, apeman, or an extinct side line from a common ancestor? Johnson says it was a primitive species of australopithecines and probably ancestral to all the other australopithecines and Homo as well. Mary and Louis Leakey think no australopithecine belong on the human line. Richard Leakey seems to regard afarensis as a questionable ancestor of man. As you can see, paleontologists can not agree on where to place Australopithecus afarensis among men and apes.

Two prime mysteries revolve around afarensis. First, where did they come from? A significant 400,000 year gap separates afarensis from Australopithecus ramidus with no hominid fossils in between.

Second, did afarensis evolve into Homo? Anatomically, afarensis is the closest fit. Besides, there are really no other candidates around. Yet we find another very inconvenient million year gap between afarensis and any type of Homo. Again, there are no hominid fossils in between. Paleontologists, for their part, have not been sitting about idling away their time. They eagerly search for something, anything, to fill those gaps. But despite their efforts, the fossil record remains a record, not of evolution, but of gaps.

Homo Habilis - Lived between 1.5 and 2 million years ago in east Africa. Nicknamed the "Handy Man."

Height: 3.5 to 4 feet; Weight: rough estimate of 95 pounds. Fossils: Skull fragments, part of a jaw, teeth, and and foot bones form four individuals were found at Olduvai Gorge from 1960 to 1986. Additional skulls were found at Koobi Fora in northern Kenya.

Appearance: Johanson says that based on skeleton fragments found at Olduvai Gorge, habilis was built like an australopithecus in overall body size and proportions. Brain Capacity: 650 cubic centimeters compared to 380 - 530 c.c. for australopithecus, and 1400 c.c. for modern humans.

A genus is usually defined as a group of species more closely related to each other than to any other species. Homo is loosely described as a "bipedal primate with a big brain."

One controversy after another has clouded Homo habilis from the beginning. From what we can tell of their few scattered bits of fossils, habilis probably looked like an australopithecus, which in turn resembled a small gorilla. Australopithecines supposably walked erect, so why is habilis classified as a Homo rather than an australopithecine?

Habilis acquired the Homo designation primarily because of its somewhat larger brain. The distinction is arbitrary. Yes, habilis' 650 Cubic centimeter brain capacity is larger than the 380 to 530 c.c. of an australopithecine, but no where near the 1400 c.c. human brain. Critics say habilis is nothing more than an australopithecine with a slightly larger brain.

Then there is the sticky problem of tool use. Flakes of stone, rough edged cobbles, and broken animal bones - tools, or at least they are interpreted as such, were discovered about the same distance between a Homo habilis and an Australopithecus boisei skull. Paleontologists credit habilis with the tools.

All in all, naming this species "handy man" assumes a great deal more than we really know. Did these stones and bones belong to boisei or habilis? Were these instruments modified for use, or were they simply used as found? Or did anyone use them at all?

Does it really matter? In his book Ancestors, Johanson tells us that chimpanzees in the forests of Tai National Park in the Ivory Coast have been observed carrying sticks through the jungle to break open panda nuts. And the chimps use stones as hammers to crack the nutshells. They even save a good stone for future use.

Also chimpanzees are capable of learning how to chip stone flakes for obtaining food. Granted, the chimp-cracked stones are not of the caliber of those associated with habilis. Still the fact remains, chimpanzees make and use tools; yet no one classifies chimps in the genus Homo.

About six miles away from the boisei and habilis fossils, researchers uncovered a circle of loosely packed stones, which is thought to be a wind breaker such as a hunter might make. Again, the assumption is that habilis did it. Maybe, maybe not. But it is hard to build a convincing case that habilis was a toolmaker based upon flaked stones at one location and a crude circle of rocks at another.

Other habilis critics, a growing body of scholars says Johanson, argue that the fossils lumped together as habilis show too much variation to belong to the same species. Sound familiar? That's the same dispute paleontologists had over Australopithecus afarensis.

Who was Homo habilis? Same or similar to Australopithecus, or a breed apart? Tool user, toolmaker, or both? One species? Two? Three or more? There is very little we can say for certain. We find a creature with a brain a little larger than australopithecines but much smaller than human. He may have used tools of a better quality than chimpanzees can produce today. It is possible, although this is pure speculation, that habilis is the one responsible for putting those stones in a circle too.

Some paleontologists believe that Australopithecus afarensis somehow evolved into habilis. However, nearly a million years lie between the two species with nothing to fill the gap. Consequently, habilis' ancestors remain an unsolved mystery without even a decent clue.

Questions to Consider:

1.Does the fossil record clearly show the evolution of mankind, or is it a series of gaps filled with speculation based on meager evidence?

2. Why do you think paleontologists disagree among themselves about the ancestors of humans?

About the Author
Jerry Boone, Gatlinburg, Tennessee, United States webmaster@merechristianity.us Mr. Boone is a sailor, author, and webmaster of http://merechristianity.us with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Anthropology from Georgia State University. His works include: Mere Christianity.us and SAFETY LINE - EVIDENCE OF THINGS NOT SEEN, an apologetic study published 1998.

Embryonic Stem Cell Research and Harvesting - A Unique Declaration   by Robin Calamaio

Preface. This is an excerpt from the Ebook, "Abortion: How (and Why) Abortion Resides in the Weakest Form of Human Thought and Valuation" (pages 41-45). This comes rather late in the discussion, so some statements here refer back to previous points in the Ebook. I will insert a few comments in [brackets] to clarify a previously made point. The full work is free at Website in Author Bio.

Embryonic Stem Cell Endeavors

There are several ways to approach this subject. But since I have been approaching abortion from the three world views, it seems reasonable to continue on this path. Let's first examine the Naturalistic view, then the Biblical Theological view, and then the Humanistic view. But first, what are "Embryonic Stem Cell Endeavors"?

Stem cells are extracted from human embryos in the hope that those cells may one day be used to cure various maladies in other human beings. As of this writing, the cells are being used for research and experimentation in the hope of finding those cures. There is only a five day window in the development of the embryo when this harvest can occur. Presently, embryonic stem cells taken for this research require the death of the embryo. If embryonic stem cell research one day results in cures for other humans, then a full scale cultivating and harvesting of embryos will ensue.

The Naturalistic View.

[In pages 8-28, I established that Naturalists/Evolutionists are adamantly pro-life. The following assertions flow from that demonstrated conclusion.] For starters, it is irrelevant to the Naturalist if these stem cell endeavors are a natural or unnatural enterprise. As we have seen, the Naturalist is for the life of any embryo over any present, malady-ridden human. Any one of them might possess the needed genius to save our species - and world - from our impending planetary doom. Currently, stem cell research is just research and a relatively few embryos have been killed. But even this loss is totally unacceptable to the Naturalist, as our next Einstein may already be strewn in some lab - forever lost. But if this research leads to cures for other humans, embryos will be grown for harvest. Its stem cells, indeed its life, will be extracted for consumption by another human.

Now let me ask you a question. When a species consumes those of its own species, what is this called? I was going to give you a moment to think of the answer, but you already know it. And, you are right! This is known as cannibalism. Therapies coming from embryonic stem cell harvesting will be a sophisticated form of cannibalism.

I hear the screeching even now. "What kind of radical lunacy is that? Cannibalism? What an outrageous claim by a dangerous, right-wing, religious oppressor! Cannibalism is the eating of the flesh of ones own species! Nobody is eating an embryo! They will enter sick bodies by injection, or implant, or pills or some way other than eating. And besides that, eating is for nutrition - and the embryos will be consumed for medicinal purposes!" Well, are you done yet? " *#%@* no, you cruel, hard-hearted, twisted, *#+%*, hypocrite! These embryos will be used to heal people from all kinds of horrific diseases. Do you want to let these people suffer and die? What kind of 'Christian' are you? And what if it is your Mom or your Dad that can be cured? What if it is your child? What if it is you? You will change your tone real quick. And what if ...." I know you are still screeching, but I am temporarily cutting you off and will now address those not ruled by emotion. But, for now, let's leave out anything that has to do with "religion" or "Christianity." I'll get to the "God part" later.

When I stated this harvesting would be "a sophisticated form of cannibalism," I am simply speaking of the biological reality. Embryonic stem cell therapies will be the consumption of one genetically complete (and unique) human life form - by another genetically complete (and unique) human life form. Any biologist, researcher, or doctor who denies this physical reality has left the realm of science - and opted for some kind of metaphysical speculation. And, to state what is now obvious to you, an embryo is human flesh. It is nothing else and it cannot become anything else. It's just very young and very small - and unable to defend itself.

Robin Calamaio - Christian in 1977. B.A., Bus. Admin ('90), Master of Divinity (Emmanuel School of Religion '92). Major writings: "No Tithe for the Christian" "Love and the Bible" "Death and the Bible" "Abortion: How (and Why)..." "Capital Punishment and the Bible"

All free at www.freelygive-n.com .

 

 

We're all familiar with dinosaurs from movies such as Jurassic Park and King Kong, but how much do you really know about dinosaurs? Here are 10 facts about dinosaurs which you can amaze your friends and family with:

1. Dinosaurs first appeared during the Triassic period (248 to 213 million years ago), and were the dominant land animals through the entire Jurassic period, and to the end of the Cretaceous period (65 million years ago).

2. We know about dinosaurs because fossils have been found. The fossils, which are generally found in sedimentary rocks, including fossilized body parts (bones, teeth, skin, claws, etc.), as well as trace fossils ("ichnofossils") which show how the animals lived, which include footprints, burrows, nests, toothmarks, dung, etc.

3. The earth's continents slowly move through a process known as "plate tectonics". When dinosaurs first appeared during the Triassic period, all the earth's continents were joined together in one super-continent known as "Pangea".

4. All the familiar types of dinosaurs, died off at the end of the Cretaceous period. There are many different theories why this may have happened, but today the most popular theory is that an asteriod hit the earth, blocking out the sunlight so that there was not enough food available. Evidence for this theory is a layer of iridium, which is believed to have come from the asteroid, has been found around the world, and a possible impact site found in southern Mexico.

5. The smallest known dinosaur is Compsognathus, which lived in Europe during the late Jurassic, and was about the size of a chicken. Compsognathus is believed to have eaten insects, lizards and other small animals.

6. There are quite a few candidates for the largest dinosaur, as there are several types of dinosaur that were over 100 feet (30 metres) long. The largest was certainly some kind of sauropod (a four-legged plant-eating dinosaur with a long neck) that lived during the late Jurassic or early Cretaceous period.

7. The word "dinosaur" was coined by Sir Richard Owen, who also founded the Natural History Museum in London, England. "Dinosaur" means terrible lizard, and is based on the Greek words "deinos" (terrible) and "sauros" (lizard).

8. People have been finding dinosaur fossils for hundreds of years, but didn't know what they were until quite recently. The first time that a dinosaur was scientifically described was in 1824, by William Buckland.

9. At the same time that dinosaurs dominated the land, there were many aquatic reptiles that dominated the seas, although these were not dinosaurs. These aquatic reptiles included plesiosaurs, nothosaurs, mosasaurs and ichythosaurs.

10. Although birds seem to have evolved from dinosaurs, no non-avian flying dinosaurs are known. However, at the time of dinosaurs there were many flying reptiles, known as pterosaurs.

About the Author

For more information about dinosaurs, please go to http://www.dinosaurjungle.com/

For latest dinosaur news please go to http://www.dinosaursnews.com/

This article is Copyright (C) 2007, Answers 2000 Limited. Permission is granted to reprint provided no changes are made,