Select the search type
  • Site
  • Web

CanoeingLynx and PartridgeWalleye Rising

Honoring the pride of the Northland!  We serve to highlight our communities with honest reporting as progress is dependent on facts.  The Northland 

is rich with outdoor activities and beautiful landscapes found in few places around the world.  We respect the need to preserve our environment while 

also allowing for the sustainable incomes and livelihoods of our residents.  Both are needed and possible.

(Pictures courtesy of

Northland Watch:  When you want or need your news fast!  The only place you're going to find the good and bad in your community.

DNA Sequences Support Creationism
Do DNA Sequences Support Evolution or Creationism? 
Marvin Pirila, Northland Watch

Researchers have determined the actual sequence of the roughly three billion bases of DNA (A, T, C, G) that make up the human genome.  They have also sequenced the genomes of many other living organisms.

“DNA data support the obvious and distinctive categorization of life that is commonly observed in the fossil record and in existing life forms,” says Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

Tomkins states, “There is a clear demarcation between each created kind (humans, chimps, mice, chickens, dogs, etc.), and there is no blending together or observed transition from one kind of animal to another. All created kinds exhibit a certain amount of genetic variability within their grouping while still maintaining specific genetic boundaries. In other words, one kind does not change into another, either in the fossil record or in observations of living organisms.”

Although, the genome of each living being is unique, many animal kinds share some specific types of genes generally similar in DNA sequence. Evolutionary scientists often hand-select the genes that are commonly shared and more similar, while giving less attention to categories of DNA sequence that are dissimilar.  This approach allows scientists to include more animal taxa in their analysis, giving a broader data set so they can propose a larger evolutionary tree.

The more common a cellular process is between organisms, the more similar its various components generally are. Evolutionists would have you believe this indicates random chance processes, but it could also be the Creator’s effective use of genetic code in different creatures to accomplish a common and basic cellular function.
Computer programmers will not re-write long, complicated blocks of code when they already have what they need somewhere on file.  The programmers will simply re-write portions they need to in its new context.
Over a million different protein variants are derived with the roughly 25,000 genes in the human genome. A single animal gene can code for a wide variety of different proteins through a variety of complicated regulatory mechanisms. This discovery totally negated the one-gene/one-protein mentality that originally existed when DNA sequence was first studied. This highly efficient code usage has never been equaled by man’s most complex computer programs.

In addition to studying genes that code for proteins, scientists are only beginning to explore an equally critical and complicated class of DNA sequence called regulatory elements. These DNA sequences do not code for protein but are involved in the regulation of genes -- the protein the gene generates, how much, how often, how fast, and when and where in the body it is produced.  The gene regulatory process is very complicated as the regulatory differences play a primary role in defining the uniqueness of a certain kind of organism.
The ENCODE (ENCyclopedia of DNA Elements) project involves ongoing research to determine the identity and characteristics of the regulatory elements in the human genome. ENCODEs early results have revolutionized the concept of genetics by showing whole new levels of complexity and efficiency of code and gene activation. 

The genetic profile is showing an incredibly networked and regulatory complexity with an extremely high level of efficiency in code usage.  It is highly improbable that such a genetic makeup could have evolved on its own through random chance as required by evolutionary processes.
In researching for his video, “Evolutions vs. God,” Ray Comfort, asks different evolutionists, the question, ‘Is there scientific evidence – observable evidence – to support evolution?’ They gave the usual examples about changes in bacteria, different species of fish (like stickleback fish) and Darwin’s finches. However, as Comfort points out over and over again in his video, the bacteria are still bacteria, the fish are still fish, and the finches are still finches!”  If everything is the same, evolution fails.