This is an extract from a website of Jonathan Wells in which he describes his calling into the fight against Darwinism:
http://www.tparents.org/library/unification/talks/wells/DARWIN.htm
>According to the standard view, the development of an embryo is programmed by its genes-its DNA. Change the genes, and you can change the embryo, even to the point of making a new species. In the movie "Jurassic Park," genetic engineers extract fragments of dinosaur DNA from fossilized mosquitoes, splice them together with DNA from living frogs, then inject the combination into ostrich eggs which had had their own DNA inactivated. In the movie, the injected DNA then re- programmed the ostrich to produce a dinosaur. Experiments similar to this have actually been performed, though not with dinosaur DNA.
>In every case, if any development occurred at all it followed the pattern of the egg, not the injected foreign DNA. While I was at Berkeley I performed experiments on frog embryos. My experiments focused on a reorganization of the egg cytoplasm after fertilization which causes the embryo to elongate into a tadpole; if I blocked the reorganization, the result was a ball of belly cells; if I induced a second reorganization after the first, I could produce a two-headed tadpole. Yet this reorganization had nothing to do with the egg's DNA, and proceeded quite well even in its absence (though the embryo eventually needed its DNA to supply it with additional proteins).
>So DNA does not program the development of the embryo.
I know Well carries two PhD's, but this seems just plain wrong. His statement that the DNA in an egg does not control the initial developement of the embryo seems almost silly. Is he refering to an egg with two sets of DNA (one natural one injected) ?
Any ideas ?
Alan McCarrick
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed Sep 26 2001 - 09:48:08 EDT