Now in one of Joel’s books where he’s talking about animal health, he mentions a scientist by the name of Antoine Bechamp. And basically what Joel gleaned from Bechamp is that animals don’t need drugs to stay healthy, they just need their “terrain” to be controlled correctly. In other words, they must be fed the right food and managed the way God intended them to be managed. If they are not, then the microbes mutate and become virulent and animals get sick and die unless we medicate them heavily. So Joel took Bechamp’s advice and began moving cows around the pasture and letting them eat what they were designed to eat – grass. And since he does this, he doesn’t have to medicate and he has generally healthy cows. He takes a similar approach with chickens, hogs and rabbits. Brilliant. Why isn’t everyone doing this?

How about the other Joel? Dr. Joel Fuhrman? Well Dr. Fuhrman is basically doing with people what Joel Salatin is doing with animals – controlling the terrain properly. Dr. Fuhrman is healing people and getting them completely off meds by changing their diet, which equips the body to be strong and healthy and renders most microbes non-virulent. Why do people get colds? According to Dr. Fuhrman it’s not really because there was a “bad” bug floating around and you caught it. It’s because your body has been poisoned with unhealthy food which weakens it and provides an environment for otherwise benign microbes to become virulent. Here’s a recent research paper which explains this. http://birdflubook.org/resources/beck683.pdf

So the two Joels are implementing the principles discovered by Professor Bechamp and revolutionizing agriculture AND health care! Wow! So who is this Bechamp character and why did I not learn about him in school? Turns out he was a brilliant scientist who made many important discoveries in microbiology, the most important in my opinion being the concept of Microbe Pleomorphism. Meaning that microbes take different shapes in different environments and can be virulent or non-virulent depending on the environment. For example, if you eat the wrong sort of foods (Big Macs, Cokes and fries for example), your body will have an internal environment conducive to making certain bacteria and viruses virulent, whereas if you ate good food, these microbes would be benign. Bechamp was an intense rival of Louis Pasteur and their key difference seems to be that Pasteur believed in the concept of Microbe Monomorphism. Meaning that microbes pretty much have one shape and stick with that one shape. And some microbes are virulent in all environments and some are non-virulent.

So early in Microbiology, we had the Monomorphists (Pasteur) and the Pleomorphists (Bechamp). Which is correct? As it turns out, Bechamp was correct (as the two Joels are now demonstrating) but Pasteur’s idea won the day and gave birth to the modern idea that “germs are bad” and “we need to kill germs” and “you’d better get your kids immunized or they will get sick” and so on. I would encourage you to read up on Pasteur vs. Bechamp HERE. Please note: I have not yet investigated “microzymas” yet and there are some claims in that article that I am not sure about. But overall it’s a great article. And what I have investigated is that Pasteur’s idea of Monomorphism was wrong and that being so, antibiotics are largely unnecessary and immunizations are harmful.

Conclusion: The two Joel’s are revolutionizing health care and agriculture based on the principles of Professor Antoine Bechamp. And the world would have been better off if Louis Pasteur would have gone into shoe sales instead of microbiology.

Here’s an article on Pleomorphism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pleomorphism_(microbiology)

Here’s an article discussing the four different shapes of E. coli http://www.infection-research.de/perspectives/detail/pressrelease/shape_matters_why_bacteria_care_how_they_look-1/

Discussion thread on this topic http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=45842

Fast forward to the early 21st century and we have a similar problem when contemplating the universe. It turns out that the amount of mass of objects outside the solar system calculated from two different methods — (a) Newton’s mass equation and (b) mass inferred from the visible luminous material — always disagrees, with the latter being smaller. M/L ratios have been derived for various cosmic objects and the larger the object, the higher the M/L ratio. This has necessitated what Hartnett calls ‘fudge factors’ such as dark matter and dark energy and it surprised me to learn that the percentages of this mysterious dark matter and dark energy are so large in the Friedmann models of the universe — 22% and 74% respectively–with only 4% being normal matter. I don’t know about you, but there seems to be something seriously wrong with this picture. Guess what … there is. In the early 1990′s, a theoretical physicist, Moshe Carmeli, extended Einstein’s theories into a new theory — Cosmological Special Relativity and then his General Theory, which included matter. Hartnett writes …

“In 1996, using his new theory, … Carmeli predicted[11] that the universe must be accelerating. This was almost two years before the observations determined it to be so. Carmeli’s new spacevelocity is an extension to Einstein’s general theory, which incorporates a new dimension, the velocity of the expanding fabric of space itself. His general theory incorporates all of Einstein’s theory that has been found valid for our solar system at least, but extends it to the larger scales of the Galaxy and the cosmos. Using his new metric, Carmeli was able to replicate the form of the observed data from the high redshift type 1a supernova teams. In turn I have been able to extend that treatment and, by properly describing the matter density dependence on redshift, eliminate the need for ‘dark’ matter on the scale of the cosmos as a whole.[13] Also, Carmelian cosmology does not explicitly incorporate a ‘dark’ energy term. ‘Dark’ energy really has resulted from the application of incorrect physics to the large-scale structure of the cosmos. Using the correct physics, what has been perceived as ‘dark’ energy is really a description of the properties of the vacuum itself. Vacuum is not ‘nothing’ and it has properties that the new metric (i.e. the new physics) correctly incorporates (See Appendix 1.)

I have also applied this theory to the actual observational data[14a] [14b] and have found that normal matter density equals only about 4% of the critical matter density of the universe. This is the same as the small amount of normal baryonic matter we observe in the luminous matter. No ‘dark’ matter at all is required. … The fits to the observational data are far better than those used to fit to the standard Friedmann-Lemaitre models. The new Carmeli-Hartnett model eliminates the need for any exotic ‘dark’ matter at all. In fact, the model requires that the universe be of low matter density as observed. (pp. 43-44)

Other goodies in this book …

OUR GALAXY AT THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE?

On p. 84-85, Hartnett writes that based on various Galaxy Survey maps …

This means we are located at the centre of concentric great spherical shells, on which the galaxies themselves are located, that seem to be equally spaced with a separation of about one hundred million light-years.

In other words, Hartnett has found evidence that the universe has a center and our galaxy is located close to this center.  See Chapter 5 of his book.

In Chapter 6, Hartnett writes (p. 95) …

One of the consequences of the Carmelian cosmology is that, as a natural consequence of the conservation of energy, particle production must occur.  That is, matter is generated from the vacuum.  This is not creation ex nihilo but a conversion of one form of energy into another. …

He explains the mechanism by which he believes this to occur based on recent work by Halton Arp.  Arp apparently believes that new galaxies are formed by quasars being ejected from existing galaxies.  This is a radical idea because in Big Bang cosmology, quasars are not supposed to be colocated with galaxies, but the evidence is supposedly pretty strong in favor of Arp’s view.   Hartnett writes (p. 101) that …

Observations do, however, fit with the creationist cosmological model proposed in this book.  The quasars are ejected from active galaxies in a grand creation process; and, as we observe the light from quasars today, we are effectively looking back in time (because it takes light a finite period of time to travel to Earth) to these creation events. …

… my interpretation is that we are seeing the creation process in the heavens as it was happening on Day 4 of Creation Week.  We are seeing creation as it happens!

On p. 103, Hartnett states his belief that “the initial radius of the universe was about 8 million light years (possibly less) before God stretched out the heavens on Day 4 of Creation Week.  This indicates that galaxies were initially created much closer to Earth, and that God expanded out the space, dragging them apart.  And as that occurred, new material–additional galaxies, quasars, etc–was created like one of those fireworks displays where we see the exploding embers from the parent explosion in a chain reaction sequence.”  Hartnett shows that the Carmeli-Hartnett model solves the problem of distant starlight in a young universe.

Dr. Hartnett has published more than 120 papers in scientific journals and holds 2 patents. His work in the ongoing development of new physics has attracted the interest, and funding, of his university — the Univ of Western Australia.

“Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy … this author should be placed along with the very greatest of historians.”[1]

He also wrote

“Luke’s history is unsurpassed in respect of its trustworthiness.” [2]

Who is Sir Willam Ramsay? According to McDowell he is one of the greatest archaeologists of all time. Here’s Wikipedia on him …

Sir William Mitchell Ramsay (15 March 1851, Glasgow –20 April 1939) was a Scottish archaeologist and New Testament scholar. By his death in 1939 he had become the foremost authority of his day on the history of Asia Minor and a leading scholar in the study of the New Testament.
…
William Ramsay paid particular interest in the New Testament events, particularly the Book of Acts and Pauline Epistles. When he first went to Asia Minor, many of the cities mentioned in Acts had no known location and almost nothing was known of their detailed history or politics. The Acts of the Apostles was the only record and Ramsay fully expected his own research to prove the author of Acts hopelessly inaccurate since no man could possibly know the details of Asia Minor more than a hundred years of the event. He therefore set out to put the writer of Acts on trial. He devoted his life to unearthing the ancient cities and documents of Asia Minor. After a lifetime of study, however, he concluded: ‘Further study…showed that the book could bear the most minute scrutiny as an authority for the facts of the Aegean world, and that it was written with such judgment, skill, art and perception of truth as to be a model of historical statement’ (The Bearing of Recent Discovery, p. 85). On page 89 of the same book, Ramsay accounted, ‘I set out to look for truth on the borderland where Greece and Asia meet, and found it there [in Acts]. You may press the words of Luke in a degree beyond any other historian’s and they stand the keenest scrutiny and the hardest treatment…’ When Ramsay turned his attention to Paul’s letters, most of which the critics dismissed as forgeries, he concluded that all thirteen New Testament letters that claimed to have been written by Paul were really his. [3]

[1] Ramsay, Sir W. M., The Bearing of Recent Discovery on the Trustworthiness of the New Testament. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1915, p. 222.
[2] Ramsay, W. M., St. Paul the Traveller and the Roman Citizen. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1962 (originally published in 1895), p. 81
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Mitchell_Ramsay

But hold on. What is wealth? What is it really? At it’s core? Am I wealthy because I have indoor plumbing? Or because I drive a Volvo? Or because I can choose between a hundred different kinds of boxed cereal at the grocery store? Or because I have a cell phone? Or because I have a big bank account? Hmm. Is my nation (America) wealthy because most people in America have all these things? Is my nation wealthy because we have thousands of massive farms which grow millions of bushels of corn and soybeans using huge combines with air conditiong, TV and GPS? What if those farms (and those farming practices) are destroying our soil instead of building it? Then what? What if 100 years from now America is like the Sahara Desert? Will we be wealthy then? Something tells me that indoor plumbing and Volvos will be irrelevant if we cannot eat.

So what is real tangible wealth? (I’m interested in TANGIBLE wealth in this article, which is to be distinguished from REAL wealth, that is, Treasure in Heaven. See Matthew 6:19-21.)

I would have to say that at the bottom of it, at the foundation of of it … THE (TANGIBLE) WEALTH OF NATIONS IS LAND. Let me repeat that in bold type.

THE WEALTH OF NATIONS IS LAND

And it so happens that our land – our farmland that is – is being destroyed. Year by year. Inch by inch. If you don’t believe me, read Joel Salatin’s book “The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer.” He’s the guy who Chipotle buys their meat from. And in my opinion he’s one of the most important visionaries of modern times. He should get a Nobel prize but I’m sure that will never happen. After all, he’s a lunatic. Anyone who says they are a farmer but doesn’t own a plow is a lunatic, right?

Wrong.

The truth is that Joel is one of the few farmers on the planet who is BUILDING WEALTH (soil) instead of DESTROYING WEALTH (soil). Quite NON-lunatic actually. In fact, maybe it’s the rest of us who are the real lunatics.

How does Joel build wealth? Two ways that I see.

1) He builds soil
2) He catches water

In my opinion, these are the two most fundamental aspects of tangible wealth building. Everything else builds off of these fundamentals. Think about it. If you don’t have soil and water, you cannot feed yourself. And if you cannot feed yourself you are not wealthy. Period. I don’t care if you have a Rolls Royce sitting in your garage. You cannot eat a Rolls Royce and if you don’t have something to eat, you will die. Now obviously you need other things too. You need plants – perennial grasses to be specific – if you are going to build soil. And you need animals. And soil organisms. And you need sunshine. And you need air. Now these latter items are obvious and readily available. But building soil is not obvious. And most people don’t even know that we need to build soil. And water catchment is all too uncommon.

Soil building. To build soil you need (most visibly) two things – a) cows (or bison or some sort of herding herbivore) and b) perennial grasses. Yes, you need some ancillary things as well – coyotes, wolves, mountain lions (or electric fence) to pack the herd into a dense mob. And you need earthworms and other soil organisms and so on. But it all centers around THE HERD and PERENNIAL GRASSES. It’s an amazing system and it wasn’t invented by Joel Salatin. It was invented by God. God is an engineer by the way. I like to think of God in this way because I have an engineering mind. I love electro-mechanical gadgetry and God apparently does too. From an engineering perspective, perennial grasses and herbivores are amazing electro-mechanical gadgets. As are earthworms. And soil bacteria. Actually they are much more than that. Every organism on the planet is actually an unbelievably sophisticated computer controlled robotic machine, composed in turn of zillions unbelievably sophisticated computer controlled robotic nano-factories (cells). All working in synchronicity to accomplish some purpose decreed by the Master Engineer. Here’s a simplified overview of natural soil building from an engineering perspective: A grass seed sprouts – an amazing process in itself. The sun shines and another amazing process begins – the use of light to create plant food. Grass grows tall and roots reach their maximum extent in the soil. Along comes Bessie and eats the grass. At this point yet another amazing thing happens with the grass plant. It sheds a large part of it’s root system. In other words, the roots prune themselves and the dead roots become organic matter in the soil. Think about that! How many home gardeners all across America spend money, time and energy going to the garden center and buying bags of cotton bolls or cow manure or what have you, then laboriously digging in their gardens to incorporate the organic matter into their soil. So from an engineering perspective, God has created an Automatic Soil Enhancing System. Cow eats grass. Soil is enriched. Automatically. Brilliant. But wait. There’s more. Cows have four stomachs which process grass and turn it into a) high density protein (meat) and b) manure. Now the benefit of the meat is obvious, but how about the manure? Manure is yucky, right? Let’s get rid of it. Yes it’s yucky if not managed properly, but again, God has designed a wonderful system to manage it properly. Here’s how it works: the manure exits the back end of the cow and immediately gets stomped and spread by the herd. Then the herd moves on because they’ve eaten all the grass and birds come along and pick out all the maggots and spread the manure even more. Maggots are like filet mignon to a bird and manure is like butter pecan ice cream to a grass plant. They love this stuff! Thus the cycle is complete. Sun makes grass grow. Cow eats grass and gains protein. Grass plant feeds soil with pruned roots. Cow poops and feeds grass even more. Soil builds. And the only thing the farmer has to do is move the cows every day with some electric fence. (I wonder if you could train a pack of wolves to do the job for you?!) How much protein can the land produce? Joel’s pastures are reported to be 400 cow days per acre. That means it takes less than one acre to feed a cow for a whole year (More than 4X as productive as land around here. Best I can determine (not having done it much) you could produce at least 27 cows per year on 80 acres if your pasture was this good. That’s a herd of about 30 mommas and a bull to start out which produce about 27 calves per year. The calves would be full grown in about 2 years. Sold as quarters, grass fed cows bring about $2000 per head which would be $54000 per year in gross income. Sold in small pieces this figure would be higher. To get the pasture this productive would require several years and/or some fairly heavy composting of the pasture. The cool thing is that this system requires virtually NO outside inputs. No meds. No corn. No hay (cows eat grass all winter stockpiled in certain paddocks). It’s a solar powered system that just grows soil and meat year after year. And the meat is healthy for you, unlike feedlot beef. As for cash income, this system produces about $700 per acre. If you just run a finishing operation and buy calves in, you’re looking at more like double this figure. Chickens can produce more like $3000 per acre but they do not grow soil like cows do.

Are we a wealthy nation? Not for long I think. We once were back when the Mayflower arrived. But we’ve been steadily spending our wealth down the river. But we could get it back again if we would build our soil. More on catching water in another post.

II Chronicles 7:14 If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.

** NEWS FLASH ** AMERICAN FARMERS ARE DESTROYING OUR ABILITY TO FEED OURSELVES AND THEY DON’T EVEN KNOW IT.

In 2008, I went to Joel Salatin’s Polyface Farm (Joel is the guy who sells meat to Chipotle) for Field Day. I came back very inspired and wanted to join his movement somehow. My wife thought I was crazy talking about “healing the land” and such. But is “healing the land” a crazy idea? Is the land even “sick”? Why does it need to be healed?

Well … yes … the more I read, the more I realize that yes, it IS quite sick and yes, it DOES need healing. What am I talking about? Well Joel Salatin has made me realize that tillage and row cropping destroys soil. Let me say that again …

TILLAGE AND ROW CROPPING DESTROYS SOIL

That’s right. We have millions and millions of acres of farmland in America and every year, it’s tilled and planted with annuals – corn, soybeans and wheat primarily. And I have now come to believe, thanks to Joel, that in so doing we are utterly and completely destroying our ability to feed ourselves – little by little, year by year. We beat the soil into submission with our plows. Then we spray chemical fertilizers on to get a boost. Then we spray more stuff on to kill weeds. Then – in the case of corn – we feed the crop to animals who were not designed to eat corn – cows. This messes up the cow and the cow’s meat. Then we eat the meat and it messes US up. So we are destroying our soil and damaging our health by eating messed up meat. And we think we are sophisticated. AND we are exporting our farming “expertise” to the “third world.” Wow. Heaven help us. What to do about it?

This article recognizes this loss of topsoil but their solution is “no-till” agriculture, which still doesn’t solve the problem, it just slows it down a bit. The REAL solution is to BUILD SOIL – with two things …

1) Perennials, and
2) Herbivores

In simplest terms, this is what Joel does on his farm and the result is amazing. Instead of the soil on his farm being depleted and running off into streams and rivers, he’s actually building soil. It’s actually much thicker, much more fertile, and much more drought tolerant now than it was 40 years ago. Back then Joel reports that his 100 acres of pasture could barely support 15 cows. Now it can support more than 100 and it gets better every year. Joel grows hay so thick that conventional hay mowers get chugged up. The process he uses is so simple it will blow your mind. Here’s what he does. He allows his pastures to grow tall, then turns his entire herd into a small patch and leaves them there for one day. This is called “mob stocking.” Then he moves them to another patch by moving electric fence. And so on throughout the year. When the grass gets mowed by the cows, the grass plants shed much of their root systems. This becomes organic matter in the soil which feeds earthworms and other essential soil organisms. The cows also manure the pasture and stomp it around because they are packed so closely together. This also feeds the soil organisms. That’s it! Grass grows (and weeds grow). Cows eat. Cows poop and spread their own manure. Soil grows and becomes more fertile. Year by year. What a brilliant, simple system! Why don’t ALL farmers do this?

I don’t know, but more should. We literally have a system right here in front of our eyes to solve some of the most fundamental problems facing our world today. And most people have no idea that we even have a problem.

A familiar verse comes to mind …

“If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land.” … HEAL THEIR LAND.

Did you catch that? God doesn’t say “I will heal their bodies.” Or “I will heal their relationships” although those things are important.  He says “heal their LAND.”

Interesting, isn’t it?

By the way, here’s a recent interview with Joel. Note what he says is his number one priority.

MH: So, for the readers who may not be familiar with your work or with agriculture in general, can you tell us a little bit about what you do?

JS: Sure. We’re a pasture based livestock… well, the bottom line is, what we do, we’re in the healing business. So what we’re trying to do is heal the land. That’s number one is heal the land.Everything else is secondary. Of course, what happens is, when you heal the land, you heal people, and economies, and communities, and all sorts of things.

You can read more detail about all this by reading two of Joel’s books …

Salad Bar Beef (1996), and
The Sheer Ecstasy of Being a Lunatic Farmer (2010)

Absolute MUST READS not just for would be farmers but for anyone who cares about the future of food production!  (That’s everyone)

PS: On p. 50 of Salad Bar Beef, Joel points out that the Sahara desert used to be lush and verdant (reported by Homer) but now it’s a desert. Joel says this was caused by bad agricultural practices. Note to self: research this.

PSS: Joel got his idea for high density rotational grazing from studying nature and history. He notes that the soil in America was very healthy and very fertile 400 years ago. At that time, millions of bison and other herbivores roamed the prairies in herds closely packed for protection against predators. They grazed perennials and in so doing “pulsed” the land and built the soil to astonishing levels of fertility. So if you think about it, not only did God create the earth. He also created a way to preserve and nourish the earth, so the earth could in turn nourish humanity. From an engineering perspective, what God created was an automatic system for harnessing solar energy to create massive amounts of high density protein – bison – and build soil fertility. An amazing system, which, thanks to Joel Salatin, we can mimic on smaller scales.

Localized random mutation, selection operating “one gene at a time” (John Maynard Smith’s formulation), and gradual modification of individual functions are unable to provide satisfactory explanations for the molecular data, no matter how much time for change is assumed. There are simply too many potential degrees of freedom for random variability and too many interconnections to account for.
…
It has been a surprise to learn how thoroughly cells protect themselves against precisely the kinds of accidental genetic change that, according to conventional theory, are the sources of evolutionary variability.
…
(3) Mobile Genetic Elements and Natural Genetic Engineering. The second major lesson of molecular studies into the origins of genetic change is that all cells possess multiple biochemical agents for natural genetic engineering–processes that include the cutting and splicing of DNA molecules into new sequence arrangements.
…
In other words, genetic change can be massive and non-random.
…
The point of this discussion is that our current knowledge of genetic change is fundamentally at variance with neo-Darwinist postulates.  We have progressed from the Constant Genome, subject only to random, localized changes at a more or less constant mutation rate, to the Fluid Genome, subject to episodic, massive and non-random reorganizations capable of producing new functional architectures. Inevitably, such a profound advance in awareness of genetic capabilities will dramatically alter our understanding of the evolutionary process. Nonetheless, neo-Darwinist writers like Dawkins continue to ignore or trivialize the new knowledge and insist on gradualism as the only path for evolutionary change.

Wow! Did you catch all that? Shapiro – a non-creationist and a guy who should know – basically buries naturalism – that is, the view that random mutation plus natural selection created life. It didn’t. It couldn’t. Change happens of course — massive change in fact — and rapidly at times, but it’s all under cellular control. In other words, CELLS ARE PRE-PROGRAMMED TO REARRANGE THEIR DNA INTELLIGENTLY IN RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES! WOW! That’s huge! And of course, the elephant in the room is the question – HOW DID THIS PRE-PROGRAMMED FUNCTIONALITY ORIGINATE??!! Shapiro doesn’t say. He can’t. Unless he acknowledges a Creator. There ISN’T another explanation, friends. Naturalism is dead. RIP.

13 years later, just last year (2010), Shapiro wrote …

The genome DNA record also bears witness to sudden changes that affect multiple characters at once: horizontal transfer of large DNA segments, cell fusions and WGDs. These data are not readily compatible with earlier gradualist views on the nature of evolutionary variation.
…
Although there remain many gaps in our knowledge, we are now in a position to outline a distinctively 21st
century scenario for evolutionary change. The scenario includes the following elements:

(1) hereditary variation arises from the non-random action of built-in biochemical systems that mobilize DNA and carry out natural genetic engineering;
(2) major disruptions of an organism’s ecology trigger cell and genome restructuring. The ecological disruptions can act directly, through stress on individuals, or indirectly, through changes in the biota that favour unusual interactions between individuals (cell fusions, interspecific hybridizations). Triggering events continue until a new ecology has emerged that is filled with organisms capable of utilizing the available resources;
(3) ecologically-triggered cell and genome restructurings produce organisms which, at some frequency, will possess novel adaptive features that suit the altered environment. Novel adaptive features can be complex from the beginning because they result from processes that operate on pre-existing functional systems, whose components can be amplified and rearranged in new  combinations. Competition for resources (purifying selection) serves to eliminate those novel system architectures that are not functional in the new ecology;
(4) once ecological stability has been achieved, natural genetic engineering functions are silenced, the tempo of innovation abates, and microevolution can occur to fine-tune recent evolutionary inventions through successions of minor changes.

This 21st century scenario assumes a major role for the kind of cellular sensitivities and genomic responses emphasized by McClintock in her 1984 Nobel Prize address [1]. Such a cognitive component is absent from conventional evolutionary theory because 19th and 20th century evolutionists were not sufficiently knowledgeable about cellular response and control networks. This 21st century view of evolution establishes a reasonable connection between ecological changes, cell and organism responses, widespread genome restructuring, and the rapid emergence of adaptive inventions.

While Shapiro is very knowledgeable about mobile DNA, he is not very knowledgeable about creationist views. He goes on to say

It also answers the objections to conventional theory raised by intelligent design advocates, because evolution by natural genetic engineering has the capacity to generate complex novelties. In other words, our best defense against anti-science obscurantism comes from the study of mobile DNA because that is the subject that has most significantly transformed evolution from natural history into a vibrant empirical science.

Shapiro seems to think that modern creationists hold a view that God created all modern species as they are today. This is NOT the modern creationist view. The modern creationist view is that God created KINDS originally (Todd Wood calls them “baramins”) and that these original kinds were pre-programmed to adapt rapidly to new environments. I became familiar with this topic back in 2008 (and wrote about it HERE and HERE) thanks to a paper by creationist Chris Ashcraft called “Genetic Variability by Design.”

With that background, I would urge you to read the following insightful article which I ran across just today …

Getting Used to Life Without Food, Part 1
Wall Street, BP, Bio-Ethanol and the Death of Millions
By William Engdahl06/29/2011
http://www.financialsense.com/contributors/william-engdahl/2011/06/29/getting-used-to-life-without-food-part-1 Here’s a snippet from the article …

The record rise in grain and food prices in recent years is not a mere Wall Street profit gimmick, although obscene profits are being made. Rather, it is apparently an integral part of a long-term strategy whose roots go back to the years just after World War Two when Nelson Rockefeller and his brothers tried to organize the global food chain along the same monopoly model they had used for world oil. Food would henceforth become just another commodity like oil or tin or silver whose scarcity and price could ultimately be controlled by a small group of powerful trading insiders. At the same time the Rockefeller brothers were expanding their global business reach from oil to agriculture in the developing world through their technology-driven Green Revolution scheme after the war, they were also financing a little-noticed project at Harvard University. The project would form the infrastructure for their plan to globalize world food production under the central control of a handful of private corporations.

Its creators gave it the name ‘agribusiness,’ in order to differentiate it from traditional farmer-based agriculture — the cultivation of crops for human sustenance and nutrition. The push to place world national governments’ emergency grain reserves into private hands was merely a logical expansion of the original Rockefeller agribusiness strategy, as was their highly mis-represented “Green Revolution” which at day’s end merely promoted a huge sale of US agriculture products from John Deere tractors (using large volumes of Standard Oil Rockefeller products) to US chemical fertilizers made by other companies in the Rockefeller orbit—forcing a trend to large scale farming and forcing millions off the land into cities where they former a cheap labor pool for large multinationals. The highly-touted harvest yields turned out to be actual losses after several harvests. 1

“It is agreeable to reason to suppose, that the Jews, when they passed out of Chaldea, carried with them into Syria the Cubit which they had received from their ancestors. This is confirmed both by the dimensions of Noah’s ark preserv’d by tradition in this Cubit, and by the agreement of this Cubit with the two Cubits, which the Talmudists say were engrav’d on the sides of the city Susan during the empire of the Persians, and that one of them exceeded the sacred Cubit half a Digit, the other a whole Digit … The Roman Cubit therefore consists of 18 Unciæ, and the sacred Cubit of 25 3/5 Unciæ of the Roman Foot” –Sir Isaac Newton [2]

“The 25 inch cubit is found in ancient Egypt, Assyria, Persia, Syria, and probably in Greece, varying from 25.1 to 25.4. In modern Persia, Arabia, Greece, Candia, Algiers, and Italy, a pic or braccio of the same length is found, varying from 25.0 to 25.3. The possibility of this widespread unit having some connection with the Chinese foot (the double of which is 25.18 +/- .04) and with the North American mound builders’ foot (1/2 of 25.20 +/- .04) should not be disregarded; though farther evidence, beyond these very close resemblances, is needed to prove a connection. Don Quiepo also connects with it the Japanese inc 75.21–i.e., 3 x 25.07. … The Egyptian form of this cubit is probably nearest to the original, as being the oldest that we have, and this gives 25.10. This is well known as the sacred Hebrew, Royal Persian, and Chaldean cubit, mentioned by Newton, Golius, Kelly, Quiepo and Oppert.” –Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie [3]

Answers in Genesis is building an ark.  A full size one!  See this link. I think this is a fantastic project and will be a tremendous educational tool. When I heard about the project, I checked to see what size cubit they were planning to use and it appears that the current plan is to use what some refer to as the Royal Egyptian cubit of around 20.7 inches. Make no mistake, AiG’s ark will be impressive at ~500 ft long if they use this cubit. But what if the cubit Noah used was really ~25 inches as the opinion of Sir Isaac Newton appears to be? Wow. That would make AiG’s ark 625 feet long! Even more impressive!

What is the evidence? Well, first we have Sir Isaac Newton’s research in which he makes the statements listed above. He lists 6 evidences from ancient literature supporting his belief that the sacred cubit was close to 25 inches long. See footnotes for an online copy of his full dissertation. Then we have one of the 19th century’s leading archaeologists, Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie who confirmed Newton’s idea quite decisively from actual measurements of monuments of the ancient world. See footnotes for his book which is also available online. Once you start looking, you find lots of sources which confirm the existence of this ~25 inch cubit.  Mr. H.W. Chisholm, Warden of the Standards of Great Britain in 1877 gives the length of the Judean Cubit of the Sanctuary as 25.50 inches and the cubit of Chaldea, Persia, etc. as 25.20 inches [4]  Chisholm cites Brandis and Queipo as his most important sources for ancient standards [5] and cites Dr. Brandis’ opinion that the Chaldean system was the original from which other nations derived their systems. [6]  Old online copies of Encyclopedia Britannica have info about this cubit also.  Strangely, many modern sources do NOT have information about the 25 inch sacred cubit, but interestingly, World Book does in their entry on the “cubit.”

So … I think Noah may have used a ~25 inch cubit. Hopefully, AiG will at least consider this evidence before building.

AFTERTHOUGHT
Did you know that originally the French specified the length of the meter as one 10 millionth part of a quarter meridian circumference of the earth?  “So what?” you ask.  Well … it just so happens that if we do the same thing to the polar radius (which is constant unlike the the meridian circumference [7]), that is, you divide the polar radius by 10 million, guess what you get?  25.027 inches!  Cool huh?  Very very close to the length of the ancient sacred cubit as best as we have been able to determine it.  I wonder … did whoever came up with the sacred cubit know the polar radius?  Hmm … interesting thought.  I’m researching that topic right now.  I’ll let you know what I find out.

WHO CARES?

To me, this topic of ancient knowledge is related to Biblical Authority. The Bible presents a picture of God imparting knowledge to early man directly, which stands in contrast to the Evolutionary scenario of humanity gradually increasing in knowledge with no input from God. Also, if the Ancients already knew Copernican astronomy 5000 years ago (as Newton believed they did) then what else did they know? Maybe we could learn a thing or two by studying them more.

MORE LINKS
Old Encyclopedia Britannica article on the 25.1 inch cubit
Table Giving Lots of ~25 inch “cubits” (p. 270)

MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT THE SACRED CUBIT
Misconception #1: Petrie repudiated the ~25 inch cubit. Some modern writers aren’t aware of this cubit, perhaps because of the confusion generated amid the many pyramid theories of the nineteenth century.  Some people think that when Petrie repudiated Smyth’s pyramid theory of the base circuit representing the solar year that he repudiated the ~25 inch sacred cubit also.  I suspect that this idea is due to various sources only partially quoting Petrie, quoting only this snippet “and it is the more unlikely as there is no authentic example, that will bear examination, of the use or existence of any such measure as a ‘Pyramid inch, or of a cubit of 25.025 British inches” but failing to read the context and failing to read further on the same page.  A complete reading gives

150. The theories of the widths and heights of the passages are all connected, as the passages are all of the same section, or multiples of that. The entrance passage height has had a curiously complex theory attached to it supposing that the vertical and perpendicular heights are added together, their sum is 100 so-called “Pyramid inches”. This at the angle of 26º 31′ would require a perpendicular height of 47.27, the actual height being 47.24 ± .02. But in considering any theory of the height of this passage, it can not be separated from the similar passages, or from the most accurately wrought of all such heights, the course height of the King’s Chamber. The passages vary from 46.2 to 48.6, and the mean course height is 47.040 ± .013. So although this theory agrees with one of the passages, it is evidently not the origin of this frequently recurring height; and it is the more unlikely as there is no authentic example [in the Great Pyramid], that will bear examination, of the use or existence of any such measure as a “Pyramid inch,” or of a cubit of 25.025 British inches.

…
1. There is doubtless a well-known ancient cubit of 25.3 inches; but that is decidedly not as short as 25.0, nor is it found employed in the Great Pyramid.  [Emphasis and bracketed text mine. See this link for Petrie's full "Pyramids and Temples of Gizeh"]

So Petrie was merely repudiating the idea that the sacred ~25 inch cubit or pyramid inch could be found in the Great Pyramid.  He was not repudiating the many examples of the ~25 inch cubit found in many parts of the ancient world by the great archaeologists of the 19th century.  It’s a little odd that he says it’s decidedly not as short as 25.0 because the examples he found in Jerusalem did in fact average 25.00 +/-0.03 inches.  (Inductive Metrology, p. 75).  I suppose he means the average worldwide is not as short as 25.0.

Misconception #2: There’s nothing special about the 25 inch sacred cubit – there are many lengths of the sacred cubit. It is true that the Jews used shorter cubits but these cubits were not called ‘sacred’ or ‘cubit of the sanctuary.’ This terminology is only applied to the ~25 inch cubit.

Misconception #3: Nineteenth century archaeologists discovered a “well known” sacred cubit, but 20th century archaeologists repudiated this cubit. I heard this claim recently so I challenged the person to give me an example of a 20th century archaeologist who repudiated the ~25 inch cubit.  He couldn’t give me one.

[1] Newton, Sir Isaac, “A Dissertation upon the Sacred Cubit of the Jews”, Source: Miscellaneous Works of Mr. John Greaves, Professor of Astronomy in the University of Oxford, Vol. 2, pp. 405-433 (London: 1737).  Link to full text online.  Search the page via CTRL-F for “Noah”.
[2] Newton, op cit, Search the page via CTRL-F for “Noah”.  Note – 25 3/5 unciae equates to 24.83 inches if we take a Roman foot as equal to 0.97 English feet.
[3] Petrie, Sir William Matthew Flinders, “Inductive metrology: or, the recovery of ancient measures from the monuments”, (London: Hargrove Suanders, 1877), pp. 133-134. Link to full text online.
[4] Chisholm, Henry William, Warden of the Standards for Great Britain, “On the science of weighing and measuring and standards of measure and weight”, (London: Macmillan, 1877), p. 46. Link to full text online.
[5] Chisholm, op cit, p. 24.
[6] Chisholm, op cit, p. 34.
[7] Depending on where you take your meridian circumference (which passes through the poles) you will get a different number … but there’s only one polar radius

If you have any more sources, or if you have any further evidence that Noah used a 25 inch cubit, please comment.

The first point is to recognize that bacteria are far more sophisticated than human beings at controlling complex operations. The fast-growing bacterial cell is the ultimate just in time production facility. When an E. coli cell divides every 20 minutes, exquisitely reliable coordination has been achieved for hundreds of millions of biochemical reactions and biomechanical events. E. coli cells replicate their DNA at almost 4000 base-pairs per second but have an error frequency of far less than one nucleotide misincorporation per every genome duplication (2 X 4.6 million base pairs duplicated every 40 minutes; Cooper & Helmstetter, 1968; http://www.genome.wisc.edu/index.html). This incredible precision is accomplished not by rigid mechanical precision but rather by using two layers of expert error monitoring and correction systems: (1) exonuclease proofreading in the polymerase itself, which catches and corrects over 99.9% of all mistakes as soon as they are made (Kunkel & Bebenek, 2000), and (2) the methyl-directed mismatch repair (MMR) system, which subsequently detects and fixes over 99% of any errors that escaped the exonuclease (Modrich, 1991). Together, this multilayered proofreading system boosts the 99.999% precision of the polymerase to over 99.99999999%. At both stages of the error correction process, detailed molecular analysis has clarified the distinct roles of sensory and repair components. In the case of the MMR system, the sophistication is even more impressive because the molecules discriminate newly replicated from old DNA so that they only correct the newly synthesized strand (Radman & Wagner, 1988). Link to paper

I also investigated viruses and found that some viruses probably do have some sort of error correction systems and one virus researcher I queried said she believes that ALL viruses probably have some sort of error correction system.

Anyway, I got to thinking about error correction and evolution and it seems rather odd to me that the very thing that supposedly created all of life on earth — random mutations in DNA — is vigorously guarded against by the cell. All cells on planet earth are working very hard to prevent the very thing that supposedly created them!! Think about that!! If that isn’t evidence against the non-ID view of Origins then I don’t know what is.

Anyway, I presented this information at the TalkRational.org forum where a number of professional scientists gather to debate Creation vs. Evolution issues. One of them, a virologist, agreed that genomes larger than about 15kb (kilobases) wouldn’t be viable without error correction. He believes, obviously, that error correction systems had to evolve at some point in life’s history therefore he believes that there would have had to be a time in history when there were NO organisms with error correction systems. The problem with this view is that the only organisms alive today that (perhaps) don’t have error correction systems are viruses with genomes smaller than about 15kb. But viruses  cannot replicate without a host (i.e. a much more complex genome which would have required error correction).  So we have a problem.  This virologist can only believe — on faith — that there must have been some sort of free living ancient organism with a genome smaller than 15kb that could somehow self replicate. But there is absolutely no evidence available to us that any such organism ever existed.  And of course nothing remotely close to such organism exists today.

So which is more likely? That such a fantasy organism (shall we call it a virusoid?)  DID exist contrary to all known facts?  Or that an Outside Intelligence created life? Well … I pick the latter because that view is based on actual experience, i.e. we have experienced Higher Intelligences (humans) creating complex entities.  Fantasy Organisms like “virusoids”, flying horses, mermaids and centaurs are well … Fantasies.  Link to Talk Rational Discussion on this topic.