The ICR’s Acts and ‘Facts’ – May 2012

Jeffrey Tomkins | pg. 8 | link

Mechanisms of Adaptation in Biology: Genetic Diversity

Jeffrey Tomkins manages the amazing feat of discussing genetic variation, even touching on epigenetics, without ever mentioning mutations or natural selection.

God gifted His living creatures with the ability to adapt to new or changing environments. Genetic diversity in adaptation refers to variation within created kinds of organisms. For example, consider the wide variety of dogs—they come in all shapes, colors, and sizes. Humans also exhibit a large amount of variation. Observable variation in the appearance of different kinds of creatures is referred to as phenotype. Phenotypic diversity is largely based on an organism’s genetic makeup (genome). The genome exhibits variation in DNA sequence called genetic diversity.

But how did it get there? How does this ‘adaptation’ take place? We know this, from the theory of evolution and other knowledge, but Tomkins never tells us this. I wonder how much of that is a desire to hide the information, and how much of it is due to an anti-inquisitive aspect of creationism on this kind of subject.

Genetic diversity is related to different parts of an organism’s genome. When genomes are compared within created kinds, certain portions are very stable and remain very similar among individuals, while other parts of the genome are extremely variable. Clearly, genetic variability is part of God’s design for plants and animals, but it is employed as an engineered system with limitations.

But again, how does it work? Why do genomes differ between ‘kinds’? And what is a kind, when it comes down to it?

Tomkins concludes:

Biology researchers at ICR are currently reviewing creationist and secular literature on non-coding DNA to determine new venues of research into the field of genetic diversity and the role it plays in adaptation.

We’ll see how they go.

One thought on “The ICR’s Acts and ‘Facts’ – May 2012

  1. I’m enjoying this post. I particularly like your discussion on page 3. The fact is that, as you say, “good isn’t the same thing as perfect.” Too often, YECs hold that “very good” means the universe had been made as some kind of cosmic playground for humans. I don’t see this in the text at all. The theology of YEC is very skewed in that they hold God’s purposes are all about making things great and wonderful for us. It’s very anthropocentric, and it doesn’t seem to reflect Biblical teaching.


Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s