For Creationist Christians: New Discovery: Sharks Have Genes For Fingers And Toes?

Question

I'm really interested and curious about what you have to say regarding this new discovery that sharks carry the genes for fingers and toes. How would a Christian Creationist explain this according to the Christian bible?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/livescience/20070817/sc_livescience/howsharkshidetheirfingers

Answer 1

"The bible isn't a historical narrative and anyone who thinks it is are in need of some crash courses on what is the purpose of mythology, of allegorical esoteric symbols."

That's not exactly true. There have been cases where historians went to the bible to verify certain historical facts, wars and such.

So I guess a shark having genes for fingers and toes means we jumped out the ocean and became primates and then humans. I believe all life has some elements in common, we come from the same source earth! But the problem I have with evolutionists is where is the proof?? Where is the missing link?? if the world is truly a billion years old there should be thousands of preserved missing link fossils lying under a rock or road somewhere. heck we can find dinosaurs and insects. And the bible by the way does mention dinosaurs. Yet we can't find one single missing link. Show me a missing link and maybe then I'll believe. You might say christianaity is a myth or fairytale, but christianity asks that you except some things as fact and the rest as faith. In science their is no faith. I have a problem with that because they world is not all fact and formulas. Life doesn't work that way. For every fact science can proof there are several incidents and phenomenons that it can't. All of life cannot be explained by science.

Answer 2

Does anyone here even understand the theory of evolution and how that applies to organisms and their diversity?
In a nutshell, organisms evolve due to what is called "selection pressure". That means that a factor in the environment causes better equipped individuals to survive and reproduce more than the lesser equipped. For example, let's say the dirt in an area was reddish and there were some lizards that had reddish skin to blend in with the surroundings and avoid predators. Then a volcano erupted and spewed a lot of black and gray dust and stones, etc, around so that now the ground was a speckled color. Now, any lizard that had a hint of speckling would have a better chance of surviving and reproducing (probably with other speckled individuals) until throughout the generations the speckling became more and more pronounced.
That is just a very rudimentary example but (hopefully) you get the message. The genes were there but weren't needed.
As for ribosomes being in bacteria- another aspect of evolution is that if something works, it sticks around. And ribosomes definitely work!
Someone said there were no missing links. How about the platypus? It's a mammal that lays eggs (instead of a live birth).
Well, if things evolve, then why do some things like sand dollars have almost the same form as they did hundreds of millions of years ago? Because they had no pressure to change! Their form worked well for them then and it still does now.

Answer 3

So what?

Evolutionists’ explanation that sharks (and other fish) have, to some extent, this genetic potential does not answer the question of how such genetic capabilities evolved in the first place or why they turn on and off when they do.

Consider the example of the five digits of both frogs and humans—the human embryo develops a ridge at the limb tip, then material between the digits dissolves; in frogs, the digits grow outward from buds. This argues strongly against the ‘common ancestry’ evolutionary explanation for the similarity and a better explanation would be a 'common designer'.

Answer 4

I read the article. The false assumption of evolution is the premise in this so called discovery. Sharks do not have fingers and toes. If they needed them God would have given them. I dont need to explain it . I know the truth . All this so called wisdom is foolishness with God. Dont be fooled by the lie of evolution. It never happened. That is why these so called scientists come up with all these hairbrained ideas and discoveries . Like the sharks they dont have a leg to stand on, oops I meant fingers and toes.

Later edit.
Martin S is so right. The written information in the DNA of just a single cell has more information than an entire 30 volume set of the Encyclopedia Britanica. If we see a ancient drawing of an animal in a cave we automatically assume . Intelligence!!! . So why not also with DNA? Yes Martin the biggest flaw in darwinism is the problem of assembling the correct components for the origin of life. All serious biologists know this . Thanks for your good input.

Answer 5

Well, if you want a biblical proof for this discovery, its not there. We can give you the book of Genesis for the creation. The Bible is not written for that purpose. Its subject is the redemption of Man. Every book has its purpose, and subject.

However, I would like to commend Martin S' answer. New discoveries would be answered by new knowledge.

Answer 6

"Although the genetic program needed to create digits might exist in sharks and many other kinds of fish, they only activate it briefly, said University of Florida graduate students Renata Freitas and Guangjun Zhang. In other words, people and other limbed vertebrates use this ancient recipe from their genetic cookbook and extend the cooking time."

An elegant design is more than the parts themselves: it involves information. It requires information input external to the design itself - and the deliberate involvement of a Designer.

The Darwinians cannot explain the origin of life because they cannot account for the origin of information. The technology that provides language - semantics and syntax, for example - is quite distinct from the technology of the ink and paper it may be written on. The physical features of the circuits in a computer provide no clue about the design of the software that resides within it.

All living things use DNA and RNA to build life from four simple bases. Evolutionists point to this as evidence for their theory-but the new discoveries of the complexity of the process, and the fact that bacterial ribosomes are so similar to those in humans, is strong evidence against evolution. The complexities of cell replication must have been present at the beginning of life.

A simple explanation for the similarities of the basic building blocks can be found if one realizes that all life originates from a single "software house."

Answer 7

God made animals and man from dust. That dust, the particles that make up the whole universe, exists in everything. Sharks could have genes from fingers and toes because the dust is all the same. The more you view science, following the bible from the perspective of the people who were prophesying it, and take that to modern science, it all fits in very perfectly. It's all too perfect to be an accident.

Answer 8

“How Sharks Hide Their Fingers”

A University of Florida study focusing on genes that control “how and where body parts develop in animals” has resulted in evidence that the genetic “potential” to grow fingers and toes is found in sharks as well as bony fish. The research appears in the August 15 issue of the journal PLoS ONE.

The results are presented as an indication that “the genetic potential for fingers and toes existed more than 500 million years ago, in the last common ancestor of bony and cartilaginous fish,” but that sharks and other fish lack digits because they activate the genetic program only briefly.

Evolutionists’ explanation that sharks (and other fish) have, to some extent, this genetic potential does not answer the question of how such genetic capabilities evolved in the first place or why they turn on and off when they do; evolutionists have yet to overcome evolution’s substantial (probably an understatement!) information problem.

Ultimately, though, the presupposition of evolution is required to fit the facts together the way evolutionists have. When an evolutionist finds two organisms with similar genetic potential (again, whatever that means), he concludes—because of his presupposition of evolution—that the two organisms have a common ancestor. When a creationist finds two organisms with similar genetic potential, he concludes—because of his presupposition of creation—that the two organisms have a common Designer, one who filled them both with amazing amounts of information that results in incredible indications of design. It’s the only plausible explanation for the origin of any genetic potential!

Answer 9

thank you for smartly showing how a controversy could properly be became on that's head to look ridiculous. despite the fact that maximum gay human beings can see the irony in what's being suggested - turn the argument the different greater regularly happening course and that i does not be so valuable for many persons of the all to vocal common christian front!

Answer 10

Oh, yes and let's not forget the biscuit that looks like "Mother Theresa". Hey maybe we came from a grain of wheat, you know wheat, flour, biscuit. And I still have that swamp land in Arizonia I can sell you.