quote: New Evidence Leaves Macroevolution Dangling
BY ARTHUR CHADWICK and LEONARD BRAND
As scientists who accept the literal intent of the Genesis account of origins, we have faced many challenges to our faith during our undergraduate and graduate education, and later on as professional scientists. Sometimes these challenges left us shaken, puzzled, or otherwise uncertain about what to do with some particular piece of information. Often we were driven back to our knees and to God’s Word for reassurance that we were moving in the right direction. Always we were directed to analyze more carefully the data from which the challenge had been derived.
One of the major challenges has been the question of macroevolution. The theory of macroevolution asserts that the first living cells, and all types of life, are the result of nondirected, naturalistic processes without the intervention of an outside agency (God). This theory became dominant in the nineteenth century, when scientists knew nothing about the complexity of living cells. It might have been easy to believe a cell could have arisen spontaneously when it was viewed as little more than a fluid-filled sac.
Enter DNA
As we learned more of cellular complexity, including DNA, in the twentieth century, naturalistic scientists had no choice but to believe that this amazing system of molecules that undergirds all life originated by accident. What other theory was there? Certainly they could not accept the idea of a Creator, since their naturalistic assumptions prohibited this possibility. Now in the twenty-first century, three crucial discoveries have undermined the foundation on which the evolutionary origin of life forms seemed to be resting.
Discovery 1: The Human Genome Project
The Two Percent. In 1990 the Human Genome Project began as a massively funded effort by a large contingent of scientists to determine the entire information sequence of human DNA. Scientists discovered, much to their perplexity, that only a tiny fraction (about 2 percent, about 20,000 genes) of human DNA coded for proteins (contained instructions for making a specific protein), yet it was known that nearly 100,000 different proteins were made in human cells. That discrepancy demanded an explanation, and the explanation was stunning. It turned out that those portions of DNA that coded for an amino acid sequence in a protein (exons) could be combined in various ways to make different proteins. This explained how only 2 percent of our DNA could make so many proteins.
It became evident that there would have to be another level of control to determine which exons to stitch together, in which order to make the appropriate protein. Then there would have to be an additional level of control to regulate that, and so on. This multilevel DNA management system was completely beyond anything that had previously been visualized for the complexity of the genetic system.
The Ninety-eight Percent. What was the other 98 percent of the DNA doing? Evolutionary biologists had long ago decided the DNA that was not coding directly for proteins must be “Junk DNA.” This nonfunctional DNA, they declared, was being modified by random mutations to produce new genes that, when functional, would become part of the organism’s genome. By this process, over time, an amphibian could become a reptile, a reptile could become a mammal, and a mammal could become a human. In fact, “Junk DNA” quickly became a strong argument for evolution among biologists.
But trouble was on the way. A new massive, federally funded initiative, called the ENCODE project, was launched to find out what the 98 percent of the DNA that was not coding for proteins was doing. In September 2012 the project simultaneously published a series of papers on the results of their work.¹ The consortium announced that at least 80 percent, and probably a lot more of the human DNA that had been thought of as “junk,” was functional DNA. It is not only functional, but also critically important.
Much of this 98 percent of the DNA that did not code directly for proteins was regulating the protein production system; it was part of the multifunctional control of the genetic system. Evolutionists were quick to condemn the report, in spite of the fact that more than 400 of the top molecular biologists in the world had been working on the project. But the results have held up scientifically and are now widely accepted.
The protein-coding genes, 2 percent of the DNA,² are very similar in all animals. We share 70 percent of our protein coding genes (70 percent of 2 percent) with an acorn worm, 92 percent with a mouse, and up to 96 percent with a chimpanzee. The rest of the DNA (98 percent), clearly, is what makes a human different from an acorn worm, a mouse, or a chimpanzee. This was a huge blow to the theory of evolution, but was long ago predicted by creationists, who recognized that a designer was not likely to burden the cell with junk.
Imagine you go into a well-organized machine shop and observe how it functions. It has hundreds or thousands of drawers along the walls. In each drawer are tools or parts necessary for construction of anything that a machine shop can make. One drawer might have a particular size of drill bit; other drawers may contain specific sizes of machine bolts or washers or nuts. Each drawer has something unique but essential for the construction of a product. Not all products will require the use of all drawers.
These drawers represent the protein coding genes. They are important, even essential, but they cannot produce a thing without the machinist and the blueprint. When the machinist is given a blueprint, he gathers the necessary parts, turns on the needed machines, and, with the skill borne of experience and years, creates the required product. Without the machinist and the blueprint, the machine shop could not produce anything, ever. The machinist and the blueprint represent the regulatory DNA that makes up the majority of the genome. Evolution has no evidence to explain how that genetic system originated. But that’s just the beginning of problems for naturalistic explanations; there is more.
Discovery 2: Epigenetics
Until a few years ago, biology dogma was that genes controlled everything, and that it was genes that determine who one is and what one could become. Now that has changed. For generations students of science have been indoctrinated to believe inheritance from outside of DNA (also known as Lamarckism) would be an absurdity: an example would be a giraffe acquiring a long neck because its ancestors kept reaching for higher leaves in the trees. However, beginning about two decades ago, scientists began to recognize another level of control that turned portions of DNA on or off, without changing the information in the DNA.
These epigenetic modifications, from outside of DNA, affected an animal’s anatomy, function, and even behavior.³ In 2014, scientists studying behavior in mice were able to show convincingly that when a mouse learned an aversion to a specific pleasant odor (animals were shocked when the odor was presented), this aversion could be passed on through three or four generations of offspring. The title of the editorial comments in the scientific journal Nature voices the thought that will occur to any Bible reader: “Epigenetics: The Sins of the Fathers.”4
In the example of the mice and in other epigenetic effects the hereditary outcome is not the result of any mutations or other change in the DNA. The epigenetic chemical changes are passed to future offspring as long as they are needed, and the changes may be reversed in future generations. For example, a parent’s diet, behavior, or stress level during pregnancy can affect their offspring without any DNA mutations, and these changes can be passed on to subsequent generations.
Epigenetics presents a dramatic challenge to evolution. Evolution requires all new genetic information to arise by random changes. Without a Creator, the genetic process cannot know in advance what the animal will need. But epigenetics allows the environment to induce changes that will be beneficial, without the help of natural selection. What kinds of control mechanisms and design are involved in developing a system so sophisticated that it can pass on behavioral information that persists, without a change in genes? This is a serious difficulty for evolutionary theory as it has been taught for 100 years. But there were more challenges to come for evolution.
Discovery 3: Orphan Genes
"Orphan gene” was coined to designate protein-coding regions (that is, genes) in an animal that were not found in any related animal type, or maybe not in any other species. In other words, there were no similar “ancestral genes” the orphan gene could have evolved from. It is just there, doing a task unique to that animal, like allowing a honeybee to make honey.5 It looks like the animal was designed with that gene because that specific animal needs it. Orphan genes are pervasive in all life forms and pose a critical, perhaps even fatal, obstacle to those seeking to explain the origin of life forms by the evolutionary process.
With continued research the total number of orphan genes identified and recognized has continued to increase, and at present may be as high as 10 to 30 percent of all known genes. More than 1,000 orphan genes are recognized in humans. At least some of these orphan genes are very important; one of them is responsible for the large brain in humans.6
An explanation consistent with the evidence is that the genes were part of the original creation, and their existence in the individual taxa is because of original design. Perhaps some of these orphan genes could be genes that became activated because of altered environmental conditions on the earth after the entrance of sin (epigenetics). In any case, they represent a sobering challenge to the theory of naturalistic evolution.
A Better Explanation
Evolutionary theory claims that new and different types of organisms, such as fish, reptiles, and mammals, originated without a Creator. This theory is now facing serious challenges because of the sophisticated mechanisms of molecular biology that have been unveiled during the past half century. Evolution theory remains alive because it is on artificial “life support,” in the form of philosophical commitment to naturalism, with its assumption that life did not have a Creator. Three recent discoveries, epigenetics, the ENCODE project results, and orphan genes, have further undercut the intellectual feasibility of “life support” for macroevolutionary theory. For many individuals, naturalism and macroevolution are still the only acceptable explanation for life, but this commitment is based increasingly on philosophy, not on adequate evidence. We hope to convince the adherents of evolution that there is a better and viable alternative that not only has explanatory value in science, but holds the promise of eternal life to those who accept it. ________________________________________ 1. ENCODE. Thirty papers published at the same time in scientific journals, including eight articles and reports in Nature 489 (Sept. 6, 2013): 45-113. See also N. Carey, Junk DNA: A Journey Through the Dark Matter of the Genome (New York: Columbia University Press, 2015). 2. J. Cohen, “Relative Differences: The Myth of 1%,” Science 316 (June 29, 2007): 1836. 3. B. G. Dias and K. J. Ressler, “Parental Olfactory Experience Influences Behavior and Neural Structure in Subsequent Generations,”Nature Neuroscience 17 (2014): 89-96. Cf. D. Noble, “Physiology Is Rocking the Foundations of Evolutionary Biology,”Experimental Physiology 98 (2014): 1235-1243. Doi: 10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134. 4. V. Hughes, “Epigenetics: The Sins of the Fathers,” Nature 507 (Mar. 6, 2014):22-24. 5. B. R. Herb, F. Wolschin, K. D. Hansen, M. J. Aryee, B. Langmead, R. Irizarry, G. V. Amdam, and A. P. Feinberg, “Reversible Switching Between Epigenetic States in Honeybee Behavioral Subcastes,” Nature Neuroscience 15, no. 10 (2012): 1371-1373. Cf. W. C. Jasper, T. A. Linksvayer, J. Atallah, D. Friedman, J. C. Chin, and B. R. Johnson, “Large-scale Coding Sequence Change Underlies the Evolution of Postdevelopmental Novelty in Honeybees,” Molecular Biology and Evolution 32, no. 2 (2015): 334-346. 6. M. Florio, M. Albert, E. Taverna, T. Namba, H. Brandl, E. Lewitus, and W. B. Huttner, “Human-specific Gene ARHGAP11B Promotes Basal Progenitor Amplification and Neocortex Expansion,” Science 347, no. 6229 (2015): 1465-1470. ________________________________________ Arthur Chadwick, Ph.D., is research professor in the Biology and Geology Department at Southwestern Adventist University, Texas. Leonard Brand, Ph.D., is professor of biology and paleontology at Loma Linda University, California.
Let me try to simplify what the article said.
Only two percent of our genome (about 20,000 genes in the nucleus of every cell) actually codes for the 100,000 proteins used in the body. The other 98% is not "junk DNA" as some people originally thought (and evolutionists wished to believe), but are vitally important, since they govern the way that the two percent that codes for proteins are to be combined. They use the two percent, like a mechanic using shelves of tools and parts, assembling them differently as needed for each task. This finding was so upsetting to evolutionists, that initially they condemned the reports, despite the fact that "more than 400 of the top molecular biologists in the world had been working on the [human genome] project. But the results have held up scientifically and are now widely accepted." Creationists thus were vindicated, in having said for many years that the Creator would not have burdened any species with "junk" DNA. It also demonstrated the immense complexity of the genetic code, all of which has to work with great precision. This is something that makes evolution look far, far less likely to be possible given any length of time.
The second discovery is that the genome of any species actually can be influenced by environment and experience, without necessitating a change in the genes themselves, simply by turning off or on certain built-in genetic switches. These changes can last through three or four generations. In experiments, mice were shocked when exposed to a certain pleasant odor, and thus were taught to have an aversion to this otherwise pleasant odor. This learned behavior was passed on to offspring for three or four generations, who showed the same aversion, even though they were not shocked, and there was no mutation in the genes. Thus the ability to respond and even alter its own nature to deal with changes in environment is built in to every creature. This idea used to be laughed off as "Larmarckism," but now is confirmed to be true, with the mechanism that makes it possible explained, and demonstrated in laboratory experiments. Thus a species does not have to evolve to deal with changed environmental conditions. The ability to change is already programmed into its genome.
The third discovery was that there are more than one thousand "orphan genes" that have already been identified in humans. These are genes that are unique to our species, and have no similar precedents in any other species--no other genes from which they could have evolved. So the idea evolutionists hopefully put forward, that genetic changes leading from one species to another "higher" life form, could have taken place step-by-step in small increments, is contradicted. All of a sudden, the whole orphan gene is there, boom, with no earlier versions in other species that it could have evolved from. Thus Michael J. Behe's "black box" argument is all the more emphatically confirmed, on the genetic level.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey yourself, Tom! I came across this new information, and thought someone in your community might see the relevance and significance of it.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Oh, it must be time to credit scientists from an infrequent and very narrowly selected group, and use the authority ascribed to science to support an explicitly unscientific idea.)*
posted
Interesting that the Human Genome project has resulted in vindicating the Creationist viewpoint. And the arrogant, closed-minded evolutionist majority is so terrified of the whole thing, all they can do is resort to blind ridicule and condemnaton. But that is nothing new for them. Evolutionists have really never had one shred of valid scientific evidence in their favor. Not a shred! They just don't want to believe in God as Creator, because then they might have to admit they must someday face Him as Judge.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dude. A significant part of that article discussed research that amounted to 'they did science, and it led to some really alarming conclusions that were difficult or impossible to explain. Then they did more science, and eventually discovered that the previous theories were wrong.'
Setting aside the question of whether or not all or any of the article was correct, it's simply inaccurate to say that just because a theory is later proven false by science that there was never any scientific evidence for it.
I'd tell you not to overstate your case, but look who I'm talking to. Anyway, it is of course fascinating that the reason evolutionists shy away from accepting the truth of Creationism (whichever of the half dozen or so varieties is actually The Truth) is out of terror of facing judgment.
All of my favorite deities who claim to be the source of love and mercy inspire bone-deep denial-terror in some of their children!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also can you go on record, how big will Trump win and how quickly will Obama burst into flames because of it?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Epigenetics presents a dramatic challenge to evolution. Evolution requires all new genetic information to arise by random changes.
These two sentences contain the fundamental flaw, Ron, if you're feeling up to a bit of intellectual honesty.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Dude. A significant part of that article discussed research that amounted to 'they did science, and it led to some really alarming conclusions that were difficult or impossible to explain. Then they did more science, and eventually discovered that the previous theories were wrong.'
Setting aside the question of whether or not all or any of the article was correct, it's simply inaccurate to say that just because a theory is later proven false by science that there was never any scientific evidence for it.
So, basically, science wins against itself.
That's the great thing about science. It can do that. Evolution is an observable phenomenon. It is demonstrably, emphatically happening. *How* it is happening isn't, and possibly never will be fully understood.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Of course one of the consistently funny things about this is the way Creationists will in effect go, "Too complex too complex too complex too complex stop!" when they track things back to where they claim God is found. Then they stop requiring the kinds of explanations they were just insisting were absolutely necessary or evolutions are wrong, deluded, liars, etc.
'This thing is too complex to have happened randomly, therefore it is obvious that something of infinite complexity must have been responsible. But *that* thing, although it is infinitely more complex, does not require an explanation for how it came to exist. It actually doesn't. The explanation for that second thing is actually 'it just is and always was'.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I do not support Donald Trump's candidacy. I have been saying for a long time that the last thing we need is another president who thinks he is a king, and with Trump's massive ego, that is what we would get if he were elected! Anyone who would brag that he could go out on Fifth Avenue and shoot someone, and still not lose any votes, is someone we should never, ever, want to see as president!
In my opinion, Megyn Kelly is a truely professional journalist--unlike so many of the mainstream sychophants for Obama--and Trump is an uncouth barbarian, who isn't even really a conservative, like he only pretends to be.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, I do not support Donald Trump's candidacy. I have been saying for a long time that the last thing we need is another president who thinks he is a king, and with Trump's massive ego, that is what we would get if he were elected!
You're not fooling anyone here, Ben Carson.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Of course one of the consistently funny things about this is the way Creationists will in effect go, "Too complex too complex too complex too complex stop!" when they track things back to where they claim God is found. Then they stop requiring the kinds of explanations they were just insisting were absolutely necessary or evolutions are wrong, deluded, liars, etc.
'This thing is too complex to have happened randomly, therefore it is obvious that something of infinite complexity must have been responsible. But *that* thing, although it is infinitely more complex, does not require an explanation for how it came to exist. It actually doesn't. The explanation for that second thing is actually 'it just is and always was'.
Exactly. This article in the Wall Street Journal a year or so ago basically made the same argument: the odds of the life evolving on its own and of the universe itself even existing are too low, therefore God! Uh, so what are the odds of the existence of an omnipotent being who can create whole universes? How does that not figure in to the equation?
And I say this as someone who believes in God, by the way. I just think that that's a terrible argument and that the people who make it don't understand logic or science.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by GaalDornick: Requesting a tl;dr version of OP, please.
Tl;Dr:
It's been apparent to geneticists, molecular biologists, and evolutionary biologists for some time, (the past decade or so), that something similar to Lamarckism, the passing on of acquired traits from one generation to the next, is likely happening, and probably a part of the bigger picture of how evolution works in the longer term.
While classical Lamarckism postulated that an organism's physical condition would be passed onto its descendants, or that genes might even change to adapt to the physical needs of the host cell, the new observations reveal something subtler. Some environmental factors may effect the way that genes are expressed inter-generationally. So, for example, a person who experiences a famine may be more likely to breed grandchildren with slightly higher insulin resistance. The implication might be that evolution has a mechanism for moving somewhat faster than classical natural selection would allow. Since a large percentage of the genome is in fact not taken up with activated genes, it's possible that a large number of possible gene expressions can be "switched" between generations. Much more study is needed and underway.
The OP has blown this non-revolutionary observation (it has been known that epigenetics could be a factor in evolution for many years), into a denouncement of the basic premise of evolution, which epigenetic theory rather reinforces than flouts.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Rakeesh, I do not support Donald Trump's candidacy. I have been saying for a long time that the last thing we need is another president who thinks he is a king, and with Trump's massive ego, that is what we would get if he were elected!
You're not fooling anyone here, Ben Carson.
IT ALL MAKES SENSE!
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I liked Ben Carson--he is a Seventh-day Adventist like me. And of course he has tremendous accomplishments as a world famous pediatric neurosurgeon. Any man who can operate for 22 hours, and succeed, has some real stamina. But I don't think Carson has a good chance of winning. And I did not like his statement that he did not think the first invasion of Afghanistan right after 911 should have taken place.
Currently I am inclining toward Ted Cruz. He seems like a consistent conservative, and he is an excellent debater. And his wife is a Seventh-day Adventist. So if he were president, at least he would be aware of the issues important to us.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, hey, let's be fair. If Cruz wins the nomination, he will be spending a lot of time pretending he's less theocratic than he is!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: Currently I am inclining toward Ted Cruz. He seems like a consistent conservative, and he is an excellent debater. And his wife is a Seventh-day Adventist. So if he were president, at least he would be aware of the issues important to us.
In a previous post, referring to President Obama, you wrote:
quote: He spent his childhood in Africa, and was schooled in Indonesia, before coming to America to attend college as a foreign student--so he has the mindset of his third-world upbringing. It was precisely to prevent this that the Constitution requires that a president be a native born and raised American.
Do you think this Constitutional requirement shouldn't apply to Ted Cruz?
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also if I'm not mistaken, the Constitution that actually exists and was written down doesn't say anything about where someone was raised, beyond requiring I think it's 15 years residence? Which considering the ages of those elected president in the past, and those running now, is less to way less than half their lifespans.
It would also have been way awkward if it required birth and continuous residence in the United States because I think the first five or so presidents were born before there was a United States.
As for the Constitution that exists in Ron's head, I can't speak to that one.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
GaalDornick--Ted Cruz' parents only spent five years working in Canada, and they had been there three years when Cruz was born. So they returned to the U.S. when Cruz was two. He would not have gone to school in Canada. He spent most of his childhood and youth in the USA. Besides, Canada is an advanced western country, as close to the USA as you can get.
Rakeesh, the stipulation in the U.S. Constitution about living 15 years in the USA only applied to the first generation after the founding of the USA. That, of course, is no longer relevant.
True, the Constitution does not say WHY only a "native born citizen" was to be considered eligible to be president. But it is certainly reasonable to infer logically what the purpose of the founders was in this.
I would like to see the Supreme Court make a definitive ruling on this. The question was raised when George Romney (Mitt's father) ran for president, even though he was born in Mexico to Americans who were missionaries. It was raised again when John McCain ran for president, since he was born in the Canal Zone, which was only an unincorporated territory administered by the USA (in payment for America's building the canal, and for America's military support for Panamanian independence from Colombia). Technically, McCain was born in Panama, despite it being administered as a USA territory (which was returned on October 1, 1979, when the Canal Zone was abolished).
[ February 08, 2016, 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, about Ted Cruz being a theocrat. Every candidate would probably say that he believes God is ultimately the Ruler of our nation, and all nations. Trump may regard himself as being his own god, but he pays lip service to belief in the God of the Bible, too.
When John F. Kennedy ran for president, he was careful to explicitly state that even though he was a Roman Catholic, he would not take dictation from the Pope--since that was an issue that had been raised. Cruz, I believe, is a Southern Baptist--like Jimmy Carter.
[ February 08, 2016, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
After I looked it up, it seems that the USSC in the past has decided (or it could be interpreted they've decided) that this might be a legislative issue. Given that the clause is pretty plainly worded, I'm not sure what the Court might interpret.
As for what they would say if asked, well of course asking for a pandering answer in the easiest way possible for the politician. Though evangelicals haven't had a problem with demanding to be pandered to for quite awhile in American politics, though usually they (as a fortunate side effect) get screwed.
As to what is reasonable to infer of the Constitution, well by all means let's apply modern interpretations to plainly worded clauses, yes?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Every candidate would probably say that he believes God is ultimately the Ruler of our nation, and all nations.
Thankfully, Sanders would not say this.
quote:Besides, Canada is an advanced western country, as close to the USA as you can get.... True, the Constitution does not say WHY only a "native born citizen" was to be considered eligible to be president. But it is certainly reasonable to infer logically what the purpose of the founders was in this.
We can all agree, of course, that it was not to ensure that presidents were not born and raised in non-Western countries. Yes? That in fact a more serious concern was that presidents would be raised in powerful Western countries?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe the concern was more broadly that a powerful foreigner could gain enough political influence to have himself declared a citizen, thus becoming eligible for the Presidency. That actually happened recently in European history- Hitler had to have himself naturalized a German in order to become Chancellor.
One has to also consider that at the time of the constitutional convention, it was believed that the presidency would never devolve to the current form of popular election, but that instead candidates would be nominated by the electoral college, and in most cases, the outcome would be decided by Congress. This was codified in the 12th ammendment, ratified in 1804. In the actual event, the latter circumstance happened only once, with President Adams in 1825.
posted
The question to be decided is what does "natural born citizen" mean? Many scholars take it to mean born of American parents, as opposed to being a naturalized immigrant. It does not SAY born in the USA. Many say only one parent need be an American citizen for the child to be a "natural-born" citizen. According to the laws that pertained at the time, Ted Cruz held dual-citizenship--up until 2014, when he renounced his Canadian citizenship so he could be exclusively American in citizenship.
According to the majority viewpoint, even if Barack Obama were born in Kenya, he had American citizenship "natural born" through his mother. With Obama, the real issue is the fact that he went to school in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship, and would have required him to renounce his U.S. citizenship to go to school in Indonesia. Perhaps this is why to this day Obama has all his educational records sealed, so no one can see that he originally attended college in America as a foreign student claiming Indonesian citizenship, and since then has not been naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship. A Supreme Court ruling on this would be very desirable. Or we might need an additional Constitutional Amendment to clarify these matters.
[ February 09, 2016, 09:58 AM: Message edited by: Ron Lambert ]
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: GaalDornick--Ted Cruz' parents only spent five years working in Canada, and they had been there three years when Cruz was born. So they returned to the U.S. when Cruz was two. He would not have gone to school in Canada. He spent most of his childhood and youth in the USA. Besides, Canada is an advanced western country, as close to the USA as you can get.
Do you think you would be so understanding with his specific circumstances if he was running as a liberal atheist Democrat?
To be fair, I have no problem with Cruz's eligibility. He is an American and has the right to run for POTUS.
Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: According to the majority viewpoint, even if Barack Obama were born in Kenya, he had American citizenship "natural born" through his mother. With Obama, the real issue is the fact that he went to school in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship, and would have required him to renounce his U.S. citizenship to go to school in Indonesia. Perhaps this is why to this day Obama has all his educational records sealed, so no one can see that he originally attended college in America as a foreign student claiming Indonesian citizenship, and since then has not been naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship.
This makes no sense. Obama went to Punahou from grades 5-12 (thanks, Wikipedia). In no conceivable universe would someone who spent the last *seven* years in an American high school *in the United States* be considered an international student, even an immigrant without US citizenship.
International students are people who are coming directly from other countries and call those other countries home. They specifically have a visa (F-1, J-1) that expires upon the completion of their degree. These visas are quite obnoxious, given all the fun my friends have had with the INS, and they are boring law-abiding people that the US wants. (see the next several comics here http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1033)Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought this was a good look at the "natural born" question from a legal scholar. He says that it's basically an unsettled question—there's a legal gray area in US law when it comes to children of natural-born citizens who are born in foreign countries.
And by the way, not that this really matters, but George Romney's parents weren't missionaries. They were simply US citizens who relocated to Mexico and lived there for a while.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jon Boy, I heard that George Romney's parents were Mormon missionaries. Doesn't really matter one way or the other. Maybe they didn't officially call themselves missionaries, to slip past the "radar" of Mexican authorities, who could be hostile to non-Catholic missionaries. The Apostle Paul, in the Bible, worked for two years as a tent-maker, paying his own way. Christian missionaries can be sneaky.
There is much that needs to be clarified about Obama's citizenship status. The fact remains that Obama was a student for many years in Indonesia, and Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. There is no record that he was naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship before enrolling in an American school. School authorities would probably have assumed he had U.S. citizenship, since his mother was a U.S. citizen. There is a history throughout Obama's life of him not being properly vetted by anyone. Most of all by the gullible dupes who voted for him.
Posts: 3742 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
First you need a record that his citizenship was actively renounced. Most countries that don't recognize dual citizenship get along by simply ignoring the non-local citizenship. Active renouncement only becomes an issue when the country has to take official notice, like the person takes office or something.
Not vetted? I suppose Clinton is known for handling her opponents with kid gloves.
Posts: 185 | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: There is much that needs to be clarified about Obama's citizenship status. The fact remains that Obama was a student for many years in Indonesia, and Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. There is no record that he was naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship before enrolling in an American school. School authorities would probably have assumed he had U.S. citizenship, since his mother was a U.S. citizen. There is a history throughout Obama's life of him not being properly vetted by anyone. Most of all by the gullible dupes who voted for him.
Here it is, all laid out nicely for you.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: The fact remains that Obama was a student for many years in Indonesia, and Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship.
quote: The Indonesian nationality law does not recognize dual citizenship except for persons under the age of 18 (single citizenship principle). ... A foreign citizen can apply to become an Indonesian citizen with the following requirements: -being the age of 18 years or older, or being married -when applying, having resided in Indonesian for a minimum of 5 consecutive years or 10 non consecutive years ... Losing Indonesian citizenship: -a person does not reject or release another citizenship even he/she has the opportunity to do so -staying outside Indonesian territory for 5 consecutive years, not stating the will to stay as Indonesian citizen before the 5-year period is over, and not reporting every 5 years to a representative of the Indonesian government -a person has a valid passport or other passport-like documents from a foreign country as proof of citizenship
Obama does not fall under any of these categories, and while his mother married an Indonesian, I'm not sure he qualifies as "father" for those purposes. Even if he did, Obama spent 4 years residing in the country, and then seven more out of it before turning 18.
Posts: 1757 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ron: Why on Earth do you assume he had to renounce his citizenship to attend school in Indonesia? There are many, many foreign nationals who attend school in the public school in the U.S. (because their parents are immigrants, or are working here) and are not required to be U.S. citizens, and I have friends who grew up in foreign countries as US citizens and attended public schools in those countries without citizenship.
That being said...
Obama lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10, which is hardly "many" years, of which he spent 2 years in a Catholic school, a year and half in a public school, and was also home schooled by his mother during this time. After that he returned to Hawaii. I'm friends with several people who attended school with him at Punahou. How do I know this? Because they talk about it all the freaking time on Facebook and God forbid they have a picture of them and the president as a kid, they sure like letting everyone know they knew him. I sincerely doubt they're all being paid off to make that up.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is progress. It's taken about what nine years, but we appear to have moved past the claim that he was absolutely born in Africa like his grandma said!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Because they talk about it all the freaking time on Facebook and God forbid they have a picture of them and the president as a kid, they sure like letting everyone know they knew him.
If I had a photo of myself and the friggin' potus as kids, that would be my permanent Facebook default. Posts: 2054 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thread drift aside, the scientist who originally co-discovered the double helix shape of DNA (Francis Crick), publicly declared he thought that DNA had no time to develop here, and was obviously planted from extra terrestrial sources.
Of course that doesn't mean what likely Ron wants it to. Just that, in all likelihood, the huge quantity of information packed into the DNA molecule for genetic traits which fuel the process of evolution which we are able to see, were designed and seeded here deliberately.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Ron Lambert: According to the majority viewpoint, even if Barack Obama were born in Kenya, he had American citizenship "natural born" through his mother. With Obama, the real issue is the fact that he went to school in Indonesia, which does not allow dual citizenship, and would have required him to renounce his U.S. citizenship to go to school in Indonesia. Perhaps this is why to this day Obama has all his educational records sealed, so no one can see that he originally attended college in America as a foreign student claiming Indonesian citizenship, and since then has not been naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship.
This makes no sense. Obama went to Punahou from grades 5-12 (thanks, Wikipedia). In no conceivable universe would someone who spent the last *seven* years in an American high school *in the United States* be considered an international student, even an immigrant without US citizenship.
International students are people who are coming directly from other countries and call those other countries home. They specifically have a visa (F-1, J-1) that expires upon the completion of their degree. These visas are quite obnoxious, given all the fun my friends have had with the INS, and they are boring law-abiding people that the US wants. (see the next several comics here http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1033)
This is all moot anyway. A minor cannot legally renounce their American citizenship, and any renunciation, made either by the minor citizen or on behalf of the citizen by a parent, is not legally binding. That's the law, and it was the law then.
quote: There is much that needs to be clarified about Obama's citizenship status. The fact remains that Obama was a student for many years in Indonesia, and Indonesia does not allow dual citizenship. There is no record that he was naturalized to regain his U.S. citizenship before enrolling in an American school. School authorities would probably have assumed he had U.S. citizenship, since his mother was a U.S. citizen. There is a history throughout Obama's life of him not being properly vetted by anyone. Most of all by the gullible dupes who voted for him.
Ron, do your homework. Even if this happened, which it did not, a minor US citizen cannot legally renounce his citizenship or lose his citizenship by any method. It is not legally possible.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, cmon, guys, you all know the protocols here. It's going to be at least six or seven years before Ron can acknowledge factual points about provable matters like this.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
He wouldn't have to be an Indonesian citizen in order to attend school in Indonesia.
I somehow managed to be an American citizen for all the 15 years I went to school in Asia (Hong Kong / Malaysia).
Posts: 1194 | Registered: Jun 2010
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well you're lacking the correct pigmentation and a scary-sounding Ay-rabic name, so of course your citizenship isn't in question.
(We're done pretending that's not at the heart of birther bullshit, right? And hey, while we're talking about gullible dupes Ron, how about those hundreds of thousands or even millions of Republicans that bought into Trump's cynical ploy that was, big shock, an obvious leveraging effort for his own eventual campaign, about Obama's citizenship? You know, that issue that went nowhere, embarrassed the party, and was proven wrong at every turn?)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
