Have you ever wondered if human cloning might be a real possibility? And if so, how close we might be to seeing mini-me’s walking about? I think about this periodically. And I have to admit, I’ve met very few people that I think would be clone-worthy. I’m certainly not one of them!

Even though almost all of my cells contain the genetic blueprints to make a replica of baby AJ, it’s not enough just to replace the DNA in a fertilized egg with my adult DNA. One of the major hurdles in producing human clones, if it’s possible, is the reprogramming of the human genome that’s necessary to erase most modifications that have been made in order to sequester or expose segments of DNA, thereby silencing or turning-on different genes during development and differentiation of various cells for different tissues.

These accrued modifications are epigenetic changes, meaning they’re not changes to my primary DNA sequences. Epigenetic changes are dynamic and reversible and involve chemical modifications to DNA and to proteins bound to the DNA (histones) that affect its structure and accessibility. These changes affect how my DNA is read or expressed in different cells and which RNAs (both coding and noncoding) and proteins are made. And that, of course, affects how different cells differentiate and function.

DNA chains are double-stranded, anti-parallel, complementary strings of nucleotides, abbreviated A, C, G, and T. The ordered sequence of nucleotides specifies genes, regulatory sequences, and other elements necessary for coordinated development and differentiation of cells and organisms. A frequent epigenetic modification of DNA nucleotides involves addition of a methyl group (-CH3) to cytosine bases (Cs). Methylation tends to silence DNA, which means the sequence cannot be read (or transcribed) by polymerase complexes.

Recent identification of enzymes that make similar modifications to adenine bases (As) in messenger RNAs and in DNA are adding layers of complexity to the array of epigenetic signals that control development, differentiation, and adaptive changes of highly complex and dynamic cellular systems.[1, 2] As we discover more epigenetic marks and learn more about how various epigenetic changes affect our transcriptomes the level of complexity is staggering.

Epigenetics and embryogenesis

The complexity at a cellular level in embryogenesis (formation and development of an embryo) and human development is mind-boggling. So much can go wrong even in the transition from insemination to the earliest multicellular blastula stage that it is no exaggeration to think of each pregnancy, let alone a successful birth, as truly miraculous. In fact, transitioning through the steps from insemination to birth is a string of wondrous events, only a few of which are well characterized molecularly. The overwhelming majority of triggers and signals and coordinating factors that alter epigenetic modifications—erasing some, preserving others, timing and coordinating thousands upon thousands of such events during embryogenesis—are yet to be teased out.

During fertilization, the mother and father each provide one set of human chromosomes for the miracle-to-be offspring (baby). Each set of chromosomes comes from a fully differentiated cell: one an egg, the other a sperm. The genetic material in each cell was programmed, through epigenetic modifications, to be an egg or a sperm. But when the two come together in fertilization they produce a zygote, the first stage of embryogenesis. The zygote’s DNA must be reprogrammed to a totipotent state—one where all potential outcomes are possible—in order to eventually produce roughly 200 hundred different cell types, through countless cell divisions, en route to becoming a fully developed human being. Reprogramming to totipotency may occur in a single cell cycle from oocyte to zygote. However, additional demethylation and further epigenetic reprogramming may occur in the early blastocyst stage. [3]

During zygote formation, the egg and sperm are not just providing chromosomes but additional cellular components.  No doubt the oocyte (egg) provides the bulk of these as it provides thousands of other RNAs, biomolecules, and nanomachines in addition to a set of chromosomes. Therefore, many epigenetic modifications passed on to offspring are most likely passed on from the mother. However, scientists know that the father too can pass on epigenetic modifications. Both maternal and paternal DNA are highly methylated (hypermethylated), reflecting the number of genes and regulatory signals that needed to be silenced in terminal differentiation of the gametes (eggs and sperm). Whether maternal or paternal, most epigenetic modifications need to be reset or erased for the embryo to develop properly.

Demethylation, removing the modifications, is absolutely essential for zygotic reprogramming. De novo demethylation occurs in the paternal genome shortly after fertilization. Passive demethylation also occurs as DNA is replicated and cells undergo subsequent divisions. Maternal demethylation occurs after paternal demethylation and by varying mechanisms. Removing epigenetic modifications during de novo demethylation actually damages the DNA when modified bases are cut out.

The mechanisms by which zygotic reprogramming occur are poorly understood, but a recent article in the journal Cell sheds some light on how DNA is repaired after removal of some modifications.[4] Although the triggers for demethylation of the paternal genome are not understood, it appears that an enzyme (Tet3), responsible for base modification, and other proteins involved in DNA repair are provided by the oocyte. The researchers show that reprogramming of paternal DNA occurs at different times and through shared and unique pathways in comparison to reprogramming maternal DNA. Numerous factors, including two different repair pathways (involving base excision repair machinery and cohesin), provide critical functions necessary to restore and protect integrity of reprogrammed DNA. Remarkably, checkpoints exist within the cellular milieu that prevent zygotes from undergoing cell division if the DNA is not properly repaired during reprogramming.

Another recent review article in Reproduction [5] highlights roles for additional oocyte factors in paternal DNA reprogramming. The extreme compaction of the transcriptionally silent (quiescent) paternal genome in the sperm involves strong binding to protamines and formation of disulphide bridges within the paternal DNA. This helps sperm motility and provides protection for the paternal genome. But the paternal genome must undergo biochemical remodeling and decondensation through replacement of protamines with new histones once fertilization takes place. The oocyte provides the endogenous resources needed to accomplish these tasks too. Sperm also carry and deliver small regulatory RNAs essential for early (pre-implantation) embryogenesis.

Fearfully and Wonderfully Complex

As I read through these articles, I began to marvel at how complex early stages of human development are. I wonder if we will discover that the human being is more finely tuned for life at a molecular level than the universe and earth are for supporting life. I couldn’t help but think of the Scripture where Jeremiah refers to being knit together in his mother’s womb as I read about the DNA repair mechanisms replacing excised bases with unmodified bases coupled with checkpoints. The checkpoints ensure that persistent DNA lesions (where bases have been cut out) aren’t like dropped stitches, ultimately ruining the final masterpiece. Scientists are just beginning to understand some factors in an amazingly complex and extensive reprogramming of paternal genomes to produce a zygote ready to grow and develop. Demethylation of the maternal genome occurs later but is just as critical for embryogenesis. It too uses de novo and passive mechanisms to reprogram epigenetic changes.

How long will it take us to unravel the mysteries of human development, and when will we cross the threshold to the revelation that we are indeed fearfully and wonderfully made! Some of us have been hurled over the threshold already. Others will follow. But will we ever be able to clone a human being? Certainly not before we master the intricacies and complexities of zygotic reprogramming.

Making a mini-me?

Even if we were able to take my adult DNA and reprogram it back to a developmentally naive state that would allow successful transition through embryogenesis again, all—or the vast majority—of controlling and contributing epigenetic factors would be different. If a human life were to come from such an endeavor, she too would be fearfully and wonderfully made, having been knit together in her mother’s womb. But she would be more unlike me than I would have been from an identical twin had my mother birthed twins.

We are each fearfully and wonderfully made and uniquely different. Each made in the image of God. Each God-breathed, living and moving and being in the One who creates and sustains all things. Everywhere we look—to the stars overhead or the overwhelming complexity of a single cell or into orchestrated flurries of cellular activities of embryogenesis—since the beginning of creation and now in the modern molecular biological era, it is evident from all that we see that God exists, is all powerful, so wise, truly good, utterly magnificent, and worthy of praise. And our souls know it full well.

Endnotes

1. Yue, Y., J. Liu, and C. He. 2015. “RNA N6-methyladenosine methylation in post-transcriptional gene expression regulation.”  Genes Dev 29 (13):1343-55. doi: 10.1101/gad.262766.115
2. Pfeifer, Gerd P. 2016. “Epigenetics: An elusive DNA base in mammals.”  Nature 532 (7599):319-320. doi: 10.1038/nature17315
3. Messerschmidt, D. M., B. B. Knowles, and D. Solter. 2014. “DNA methylation dynamics during epigenetic reprogramming in the germline and preimplantation embryos.”  Genes Dev 28 (8):812-28. doi: 10.1101/gad.234294.113
4. Ladstätter, Sabrina, and Kikuë Tachibana-Konwalski. “A Surveillance Mechanism Ensures Repair of DNA Lesions during Zygotic Reprogramming.”  Cell 167 (7):1774-1787.e13. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2016.11.009
5. Fraser, R., and C. J. Lin. 2016. “Epigenetic reprogramming of the zygote in mice and men: on your marks, get set, go!”  Reproduction 152 (6):R211-r222. doi: 10.1530/rep-16-0376

See also:  “Sins of the Father” and “Sins of the Father Revisited” by Fazale Rana

Subjects: Design, Fine-Tuning, Genetic Variation, Human Uniqueness, Life

The doctrine of creation is an essential Christian teaching that reveals much about the nature and purposes of God. Creation is not only addressed just in the Book of Genesis but throughout the various parts of Scripture. And the very first article of the Apostles’ Creed speaks of God’s act in creation:

“I believe in God, the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth.”¹

But what exactly does historic Christianity affirm about creation? In this article I will set forth a fourfold view of creation that reflects the teaching of Scripture and comprises a doctrine that is affirmed by all historic branches of Christendom.

Let’s begin with a definition of creation provided by Christian theologian Bruce Milne: “Creation is that work of the triune God by which he called all things that exist, both material and spiritual, into existence out of non-existence.”²

The Christian doctrine of creation thus affirms that God as a necessary being (a being that cannot not exist or must exist) called all contingent realities (things that cannot create themselves) into existence. God is thus the infinite and eternal, self-existent creator of all things.

So let’s now turn to the four points of creation.

1. The triune God created all things.

Our first point is that the three members of the Godhead were all actively involved in creation. While God the Father is considered the primary agent in creation (1 Corinthians 8:6), the Son (Colossians 1:16) and the Holy Spirit (Genesis 1:1–2) served as his cooperative co-agents. In trinitarian theology, whenever one member of the Trinity is involved in a divine act then in some way all three participate. Thus a trinitarian way of discussing the topic is to say that creation is from the Father, through the Son, and by the Holy Spirit. Another biblically based statement is to affirm that the Father gives creation, whereas the Son upholds it, and the Holy Spirit adorns it.

2. The triune God created all things out of or from nothing.

This point affirms the biblical doctrine of creation ex nihilo (Romans 4:17; Hebrews 11:3). This critical doctrine teaches that there was originally nothing but God (an infinite, eternal, and tri-personal spirit). By means of his incalculable wisdom and infinite power, God alone brought the universe into existence from nothing (not from any preexistent physical reality such as matter and its connected realities). Thus everything other than God was called into existence from nothing.

3. The triune God sustains all things in existence.

This statement affirms that upon creating the world, God continues to sustain and uphold his creation (Colossians 1:17; Hebrews 1:3). God continuously upholds (Greek: pherō, “carry or bear”) all things in their existence and sustains the natural properties of those created things. Thus the fact that the created order remains in existence after creation is also a divine miracle. The apostle Paul even places our lives and being in God’s sustaining hands: “‘For in him we live and move and have our being’” (Acts 17:28).

4. The triune God directs all things toward their appointed end.

As the supreme authority of all things, God continually directs the course of all actions and events toward accomplishing his sovereign purposes. Paul describes God’s overruling plan thusly: “In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will” (Ephesians 1:11).

The three persons of the Godhead created all things from nothing and continue to sustain the creation and direct it according to his sovereign purposes.

So not only is the doctrine of creation an essential belief of the historic Christian faith, but it also reveals God’s deep investment in the created order and in our lives as his creatures and redeemed children.

The fourfold view of creation also reveals that the triune God alone is deserving of worship and devotion, not the contingent creation. The universe, because it was created by God, possesses objective meaning, purpose, and significance. And this world is the stage for God’s redemptive actions in Christ.

Endnotes

1. Christian Reformed Church, “Apostles’ Creed” in Ecumenical Creeds and Reformed Confessions (Grand Rapids: CRC Publications, 1988), 7.
2. Bruce Milne, Know the Truth: A Handbook of Christian Belief (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1982), 72.

Subjects: Creation, Theology, Trinity

A lot of people have inquired about RTB’s response to the documentary Is Genesis History? We have purposely not posted anything about the documentary because no one on our staff had seen it. Last night, I saw Is Genesis History? along with two of my colleagues. Here is our response.

First, a little background: According to its website, Is Genesis History? “is a fascinating new look at the biblical, historical, and scientific evidence for Creation and the Flood. Learn from more than a dozen scientists and scholars as they explore the world around us in light of Genesis.” Digging a little deeper, the people involved claim to provide “a positive case for creation in six normal days, a real Adam and Eve, a global flood, and a tower of Babel.”

We joined roughly 80 people at the theater for the one-night showing. Frequently, the audience responded with gasps and oohs as the documentary showed some of the truly remarkable aspects of creation—impressive geological formations, stunning images of the heavens, and amazing details about various creatures from the past and present. It came as no surprise to see how witnessing creation often draws people toward worship.

A HUGE PROBLEM

Shortly into the film, a sharp dividing line was drawn. According to the scientists, theologians, and philosophers interviewed, only two paradigms exist for viewing Earth’s history. Either the “historical Genesis paradigm” tells the history properly, or the “conventional paradigm” (the standard scientific account) does. However, the documentary defines the latter as “deep time” (a 14-billion-year-old universe and a 4.5-billion-year-old Earth) and “all the complexity of life [constructed] by strictly physical processes,” with no intelligent design involved. In contrast, the “historical Genesis paradigm” includes an explicit statement that the universe, Earth, and its great diversity of life were created in six 24-hour days.

This false dichotomy leaves out a great number of Christians (myself included) who see Genesis as history but think the Bible and creation point to a much longer timescale. (To his credit, Paul Nelson, who first articulates this distinction, wrote an article stating that the movie does not accurately represent his views and that the footage presents a false dichotomy.) I (and all of the RTB scholars) profess that Genesis is historical, that God supernaturally created the universe, that God performed the miracles described throughout Genesis 1, that Adam and Eve were specially created (and were the progenitors of all humanity), that the fall actually happened, and that God judged all humanity in the flood. Yet according to the documentary, because I think the earth is 4.5 billion years old, I do not see Genesis as historical.

To state the matter more directly, the false dichotomy presented in Is Genesis History? creates an unnecessary dividing line in the church, one that is harmful to unity in the body of Christ and hinders our witness.

An Engaging Story

When Is Genesis History? ended, our publicist, Anastasia Young, commented that the film seemed to make a good case to someone without a scientific background. I related to her perspective since many of the segments interviewed scientists in disciplines far outside mine (geology, paleontology, biology). As I listened to the stories they told about the Great Unconformity, the formation of fossil sites, and the discovery of soft tissue in dinosaur fossils, they sounded compelling. Often, I lacked the knowledge to counter the case they presented. However, these all seemed less credible after hearing an astronomer give the astronomical case for a young Earth. Astronomy is my area of expertise, and I quickly recognized the flaws in the story being told and know all the data presented fit quite comfortably in an old-earth perspective.

If you want to experience another compelling, one-sided story, watch some of the videos providing evidence for a flat Earth (like the short one on the left or the long one on the right). While all of these arguments have answers (and Earth really is spherical), they can sound convincing until you hear the other side of the story. These experiences remind me to heed the wise proverb: “The first to speak seems right, until someone comes forward and cross-examines.”

More Details

I think films like this provide a great opportunity to talk about Christianity and how it relates to science. If you would like more details on some of the relevant issues that Is Genesis History? raises, listen to the podcast that AJ Roberts, Anastasia Young, and I recorded after our trip to the theater.

One Final Note

The film closed with Del Tackett (creator of The Truth Project) looking out on a spectacular mountain vista. He comments on how God’s judgement in the flood (a worldwide cataclysm, in the movie’s view) formed all this scenery. Something about this statement sounds off to me. It seems to me that if the Grand Canyon, Yellowstone, and Yosemite were a result of God’s judgement, my first response should be a recognition of my sin. But far more often, I find myself in awe of God’s vast power, profound creativity, incredible beauty, and amazing concern for me.

Subjects: Age of the Earth, Creation & Genesis, Disunity in the Church, Genesis, History, Intelligent Design, Science & Faith, Young-Earth Creationism

If you are like most people, you probably haven’t devoted much thought to earwax, unless it relates to the safest way to clean it out of your ears.

But earwax is worth thinking about, because it is a remarkable substance with extraordinary properties, as recent work by engineers from Georgia Institute of Technology (GIT) attests.¹ In fact, the GIT researchers think that they can use their new insight about earwax to develop specialized filters for electronic devices that must perform in dusty environments.

By using earwax as an inspiration for new technology, these researchers have unwittingly provided more evidence for intelligent design, while at the same time raising a powerful challenge to the evolutionary explanation for the history and the design of life.

What Is Earwax?

This substance is an eclectic mixture of fatty acids, fatty alcohols, cholesterol, and squalene formed from secretions of the sebaceous and the ceruminous glands that line the outer portion of the ear canal. Earwax also consists of shed epithelial cells and hair.

Earwax is produced by all mammals, including humans. Two different types of earwax are found in humans, referred to as wet and dry. Honey brown in color, wet earwax contains a higher concentration of lipids and pigments than dry earwax. A single genetic change converts wet earwax (which is the genetically dominant form) into dry earwax (the genetically recessive form), which is gray and flaky.

The type of earwax a person has reflects their ancestry, with people of African and European descent having the wet variety and Asian and Native American people groups having dry earwax. Anthropologists have noted a correlation between earwax type and body odor. People with wet earwax tend to be more odiferous than people with dry earwax. Anthropologists think this correlation reflects sweat production levels, with people with wet earwax sweating more profusely than people with dry earwax. Presumably, the mutation which alters the color and consistency of the earwax also impacts sweat production. Anthropologists think that reduced sweating may have offered an advantage to Asian peoples and Native Americans, and consequently, dry earwax became fixed within these populations.

What Is the Function of Earwax?

Earwax serves several functions. One is protecting the inner ear from water, dust particles, and microorganisms. Even though earwax is a solid substance, it allows air to flow through it to the inner ear. Yet, the high fat content of earwax makes it an ideal water repellent, keeping water away from the inner ear. The hair fibers in earwax serve a useful function, forming a meshwork that traps dust particles. And the acidic pH of earwax and the lysosomes from the cellular debris associated with it impart this waxy secretion with antibacterial and antifungal properties.

The fatty materials associated with earwax also help lubricate the skin of the inner ear canal as the earwax moves toward the outer ear. Earwax motion occurs via a conveyor action set up, in part, by the migration of epithelial cells toward the outer ear. These migrating cells, which move at about the same rate as fingernails grow, carry the earwax along with them. Jaw motion also helps with the earwax movement.

By comparing earwax from several animals and by video recording earwax in human ear canals, the GIT researchers discovered that earwax has special properties that make it a non-Newtonian fluid. It is solid at rest, but flows when under pressure. Apparently, the pressure exerted on the earwax from jaw movements helps it to flow toward the outer ear. This movement serves as a cleaning mechanism, carrying the debris picked up by the earwax toward the outer ear. Interestingly, the particles picked up by the earwax alter its consistency, from a waxy material, to a flaky solid that readily crumbles, making it easier to clear the outer ear, while making room for newer, cleaner earwax.

New Technology Inspired by Earwax

The GIT engineers recognized that, based on its physical properties, earwax could serve as an inspiration for the design of new types of filters that could protect electronics from water and dusty environments. With a bit of imagination, it is possible to conceive of ways to take advantage of shear-thinning behavior to design filters that could be readily replaced with cleaner ones, once they have trapped their limit of dust particles.

Biomimetics, Bioinspiration, and the Case for Intelligent Design

It has become rather commonplace for engineers to employ insights from biology to solve engineering problems and to inspire the invention of new technologies. This activity falls under the domain of two relatively new and exciting areas of engineering known as biomimetics and bioinspiration. As the names imply, biomimetics involves direct copying (or mimicry) of designs from biology, whereas bioinspiration relies on insights from biology to guide the engineering enterprise.

From my perspective, the use of biological designs to guide engineering efforts seems fundamentally at odds with evolutionary theory. Generally, evolutionary biologists view biological systems as the products of an unguided, historically contingent process that co-opts preexisting systems to cobble together new ones. Evolutionary mechanisms can optimize these systems, but they are still kludges, in essence.

Given the unguided nature of evolutionary mechanisms, does it make sense for engineers to rely on biological systems to solve problems and inspire new technologies? Is it in alignment with evolutionary beliefs to build an entire subdiscipline of engineering upon mimicking biological designs? I would argue that these engineering subdisciplines do not fit with the evolutionary paradigm. On the other hand, biomimetics and bioinspiration naturally flow out of a creation model approach to biology. Using designs in nature to inspire engineering only makes sense if these designs arose from an intelligent Mind.

Resources

“Engineers’ Muse: The Design of Biochemical Systems” by Fazale Rana (article)
“Beetles Inspire an Engineering Breakthrough” by Fazale Rana (article)

Endnotes

1. Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology, “The Technological Potential of Earwax,” Science News (blog), ScienceDaily, January 6, 2017, www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2017/01/17016092506.htm.

Subjects: Anthropology, Biomimicry, Challenges to Evolution, Life Design

The predominant cosmic creation model is a hot big bang creation model known as the ΛCDM model. The hot big bang refers to the universe being infinitely or near infinitely hot at its beginning and therefore cooling as it expands. The ΛCDM refers to the primary components of the universe. The Greek lambda (Λ) in ΛCDM is a cosmological constant that refers to dark energy. CDM refers to cold dark matter, that is, exotic dark matter where nearly all the exotic matter particles are moving at velocities very much below the velocity of light. Together, ΛCDM designates what most astronomers are convinced are the two major components of the universe (dark energy and cold dark matter).

The ΛCDM cosmic creation model, however, is not without competition. In 1983, astronomers developed a countermodel known as MOND (modified Newtonian dynamics). In MOND, Newton’s laws of motion are modified from a pervasive inverse square law where the force of gravity between two massive bodies, regardless of the separation distance, weakens with the square of the distance separating the two bodies. In MOND, the inverse square law applies where the distance separating the two bodies is less than about ten thousand light-years, but a different law applies for much greater separation distances. Where the distance between two bodies is more than several tens of thousands of light-years, the force of gravity between two massive bodies weakens with the distance separating the bodies. Exactly at what separation distance the inverse square law transitions to just an inverse law is still an active subject of inquiry.

What birthed the MOND model was that ever since the 1970s, astronomers have observed that stars in the outer parts of large spiral galaxies orbit the central cores of these galaxies at rates much faster than they would if the visible matter in the galaxies alone were responsible for the gravity pulling on these stars. MOND solves this problem by proposing that stars in the outer parts of large spiral galaxies obey an inverse law of Newtonian dynamics while stars in the inner parts of these galaxies obey an inverse square law of Newtonian dynamics.

Most astronomers, however, preferred to solve the problem of fast-moving stars in the outer parts of large spiral galaxies by proposing that in addition to the universe containing ordinary matter (matter that strongly interacts with light) it also contains exotic dark matter (matter that does not or very weakly interacts with light). To adequately solve the fast-moving outer orbit stars, however, the ratio of exotic matter mass to ordinary matter mass needed to be nearly six to one.

Where MOND had beat out ΛCDM is that it perfectly predicted the velocities of outer galactic orbit stars whereas ΛCDM came close (but not perfectly close) to predicting these velocities.¹Everywhere else where the predictions of MOND and ΛCDM could be compared, ΛCDM won and MOND failed to even come close. For example, MOND could not explain the orbits of galaxies in clusters of galaxies without introducing exotic matter, albeit MOND only needed one-fifth as much exotic matter as the ΛCDM model. Where MOND failed spectacularly is that it cannot explain the patterns seen in the most detailed maps of the cosmic microwave background radiation (the radiation remaining from the cosmic creation event) or in the largest and most detailed maps of galaxy clusters and galaxies. These maps² establish the following ingredients making up the universe:

1. dark energy                            70.7%
2. exotic matter                         24.68%
3. ordinary matter                    4.66%
4. relativistic particles             0.0085%
5. gravity wave energy            <0.000017% li=””>

Another observational proof is that MOND gets the wrong abundance value for exotic matter in a study of a pair of galaxy clusters colliding with one another. The two colliding galaxy clusters together are known as the Bullet Cluster. Here, astronomers used gravitational lensing to map the exotic dark matter. The MOND model predicted that the exotic matter would be centered on the visible matter. The ΛCDM model predicted that the exotic matter would be considerably offset from the visible matter. What astronomers measured was the offset predicted by the ΛCDM model.³

MOND also performs poorly in predicting the dynamics of stars in globular clusters.⁴ It even fails to predict the dynamics of stars in dwarf and small spiral galaxies.⁵ The bottom line is that the only thing MOND has going for it is its unique success in predicting the velocities of distantly orbiting stars in large spiral galaxies.

Now, a team of eight theoreticians has demonstrated that this success is no longer unique. They show that the ΛCDM model can do just as good a job in predicting the velocities of these stars.⁶The key, the team of eight pointed out, is for there to exist some level of gravitational interplay between exotic and ordinary matter.

That being the case, the size of exotic dark matter halos will correlate with that of the galaxy that forms within it. Then, presuming that correlation and the ΛCDM cosmic creation model are correct, the team calculated predicted velocities for distantly orbiting stars spanning a wide range of spiral galaxy sizes. Their predicted velocity values matched observed velocity values for the full range of spiral galaxy sizes.

One caveat is that the MOND model still delivers slightly better fits for the relevant distantly orbiting stars, but the fits are only slightly better. However, the team of eight and other astrophysicists are confident that these tiny discrepancies will disappear as simulations of the tricky interactions between exotic and ordinary matter improve.

These astrophysicists have also proposed an observational way forward. The same team of eight and two other theoreticians have just published a paper in which they show how the detection and characterization of reionization-limited neutral hydrogen clouds in the Local Group of galaxies would provide “a unique probe of the small scale clustering of CDM.”⁷

How do these new advances affect the case for the biblically predicted cosmic creation event? While both MOND and ΛCDM are cosmic creation models, MOND’s challenge to ΛCDM had cast some doubt on the detailed reliability of the ΛCDM model. That doubt has now been removed. The velocities of distantly orbiting stars around the central cores of large spiral galaxies is no longer a problem or an anomaly for the ΛCDM model. The spectacular success of the ΛCDM cosmic creation model in predicting in detail the features seen in maps of the cosmic background radiation and of the universe’s galaxies and galaxy clusters now stand without any known unresolved anomalies.

The foundation of the ΛCDM cosmic creation model is the biblically predicted big bang universe—a universe that expands under unchanging laws of physics from a space-time beginning where one of the physical laws is a pervasive law of decay. These new research studies that firmly establish ΛCDM cosmology once again demonstrate that the more we learn about the universe, the more evidence we uncover for the existence of a cosmic Creator and cosmic Designer that matches the Creator-Designer God of the Bible.

Endnotes 

1. Stacy S. McGaugh, “A Tale of Two Paradigms: The Mutual Incommensurability of ΛCDM and MOND,” Canadian Journal of Physics 93 (February 2015): 250–59, doi:10.1139/cjp-2014-0203; S. Samurović, A. Vudragović, and M. Jovanović, “Dark Matter and MOND Dynamical Models of the Massive Spiral Galaxy NGC 2841,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 451 (August 2015): 4072–85, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1226; S. Samurović, “The Newtonian and MOND Dynamical Models of NGC 5128: Investigation of the Dark Matter Contribution,” Serbian Astronomical Journal 192 (2016): 9–20, doi:10.2298/SAJ160113002S.
2. G. Hinshaw et al., “Nine-Year Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) Observations: Cosmological Parameter Results,” Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 208 (October 2013): id. 19, 9–11, doi:10.1088/0067-0049/208/2/19; Planck Collaboration, “Planck 2013 Results. XVI. Cosmological Parameters,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 571 (November 2014): id. A16, 40, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201321591; Shadab Alam et al., “The Clustering of Galaxies in the Completed SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Cosmological Analysis of the DR12 Galaxy Sample,” preprint, submitted July 11, 2016, https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.03155; Éric Aubourg et al., “Cosmological Implications of Baryon Acoustic Oscillation Measurements,” Physical Review D 92 (December 2015): id. 123516, 1, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.123516; G. S. Sharov and E. G. Vorontsova, “Parameters of Cosmological Models and Recent Astronomical Observations,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 2014 (October 2014): id. 057, 1, doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2014/10/057; T. de Haan et al., “Cosmological Constraints from Galaxy Clusters in the 2500 Square Degree SPT-SZ Survey,” Astrophysical Journal 832 (November 2016): id. 95, 1, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/1/95; Chia-Hsun Chuang et al., “The Clustering of Galaxies in the SDSS-III Baryon Oscillation Spectroscopic Survey: Single Probe Measurements from CMASS Anisotropic Galaxy Clustering,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 461 (June 2016): 3781, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1535; Li et al., “Cosmological Constraints from the Redshift Dependence of the Alcock-Paczynski Effect: Application to the SDSS-III Boss DR12 Galaxies,” Astrophysical Journal 832 (December 2016): id. 103, 1, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/103; M. Betoule et al., “Improved Cosmological Constraints from a Joint Analysis of the SDSS-II and SNLS Supernova Samples,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 568 (August 2014): id. A22, 1, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201423413; Nico Hamaus et al., “Constraints on Cosmology and Gravity from the Dynamics of Voids,” Physical Review Letters 117 (August 2016): id. 091302, 1, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.091302; Raul E. Angulo and Stefan Hilbert, “Cosmological Constraints from the CFHTLenS Shear Measurements Using a New, Accurate, and Flexible Way of Predicting Non-Linear Mass Clustering,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 448 (March 2015): 364, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv050; David N. Spergel, Raphael Flauger, and Renée Hložek, “Planck Data Reconsidered,” Physical Review D 91 (January 2015): id. 023518, 1, doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.023518.
3. Robert Thompson, Romeel Davé, and Kentaro Nagamine, “The Rise and Fall of a Challenger: The Bullet Cluster in Λ Cold Dark Matter Simulations,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 452 (September 2015): 3030–37, doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1433; D. Paraficz et al., “The Bullet Cluster at Its Best: Weighing Stars, Gas, and Dark Matter,” Astronomy & Astrophysics 594 (October 2016): id. A121, doi:10.1051/0004-6361/201527959.
4. Kamran Derakhshani, “The MOND External Field Effect on the Dynamics of the Globular Clusters: General Considerations and Application to NGC 2419,” Astrophysical Journal 783 (March 2014): id. 48, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/783/1/48.
5. F. J. Sánchez-Salcedo et al., “Low-Mass Disc Galaxies and the Issue of Stability: MOND Versus Dark Matter,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 462 (November 2016): 3918–36, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw1911; Toky H. Randriamampandry and Claude Carignan, “Galaxy Mass Models: MOND Versus Dark Matter Haloes,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 439 (April 2014): 2132–45, doi:10.1093/mnras/stu100.
6. Julio F. Navarro et al., “The Origin of the Mass Discrepancy-Acceleration Relation in ΛCDM,” preprint, submitted December 19, 2016, https://arxiv.org/abs/1612.06329.
7. Alejandro Benítez-Llambay et al., “The Properties of ‘Dark’ ΛCDM Haloes in the Local Group,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 465 (March 2017): 3913–26, doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2982.

Subjects: Big Bang Theory, Dark Energy & Dark Matter, God’s Existence, Stars, Universe Design