Another line of research addressing the first question involved developing a method of analyzing the rapidly accumulating protein sequence data (O’Micks 2017). We used it to show that humans are profoundly unique when it comes to proteins our bodies produce (Lightner and Cserhati 2019). eKINDS has continued the development and application of this technique known as the gene content method (GCM). Removing the misconception that all life is related by universal common descent and identifying created kinds (baramins) is only the beginning of understanding biology from a more biblical and realistic perspective. Logically following this is the second question addressed in the eKINDS research: “what mechanisms are responsible for the astounding diversity we see today within created kinds?” A further discussion of this topic will comprise the bulk of this paper. The third question is “can we trace the natural history of animal kinds as they dispersed from the Ark to repopulate the earth?” An initial attempt was made by Ahlquist and Lightner (2021) with landfowl. The conclusions for taxa can be heavily influenced by where one places the Flood/post-Flood boundary. It is hoped this question can be better addressed in the future. A summary of early work was presented in a previous ICC paper (Lightner and Anderson 2018). EVALUATING DIVERSITY WITHIN BIBLICAL HISTORY The first step in addressing the question of the amazing diversity within created kinds is to identify the diversity that exists in groups of plants or animals where there is good evidence that they are related, and thus from a creationist standpoint, are from the same baramin. Morphological diversity in crop species was documented many years ago by a Russian scientist, Nikoli Vavilov (1922). In contrast to Darwin’s belief that variation is random and unlimited, Vavilov demonstrated that clear and sometimes predictable patterns of variation exist. Some of these are very useful to humans as we use Table 1. A comparison of the biblical and evolutionary views of life in natural history, logical expectations regarding design in adaptation, and the significance of these differences as they relate to scientific research. BIBLICAL VIEW EVOLUTIONARY VIEW Background (history) A wise and loving Creator No creator A history – Genesis Assumed (unobserved) history Life was created according to their kinds – limited common descent Universal common descent A global flood affected life on earth No global catastrophes are assumed Logical Expectations Design and purpose should permeate our discoveries, though evidence of the Curse would also be apparent No real purposiveness except what can arise via natural selection Mutations are largely biased to be useful/adaptive, with evidence of errors or damage apparent as well. Mutations are accidents/errors and are random, at least with respect to fitness. Biased gene conversion is usually adaptive, with some examples of failure in this complex designed system. Biased gene conversion is a “selfish” mechanism that does not help adaptation. Other forms of transmission distortion (TRD) should be potentially adaptive under most circumstances. TRDs mechanisms are “selfish” and “cheat.” They were not designed to help adaptation. Natural selection is not essential as design accounts for most of what evolutionists attribute to natural selection. Natural selection is essential and is used to avoid accepting purposiveness that would imply a creator. Significance The biblical worldview gives us reason to look for purpose. As we do so, the amazing design reveals God’s care for his creatures, even in this fallen world. Thus, God is glorified as we more clearly see how awesome he really is. Assuming a lack of purposiveness hinders scientific discoveries and obscures what is really going on. LIGHTNER Review of CRS eKINDS 2023 ICC 243
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTM4ODY=