Share
A- A A+

Article from:

Creation  Volume 33Issue 1 Cover

Creation 33(1):19
January 2011

Free Email News
The Creation Answers Book
by Various

US $9.00
View Item
By Design
by Dr Jonathan Sarfati

US $15.00
View Item
Codes and Creation DVD
by Calvin Smith

US $13.00
View Item

The great chromosome fiasco

by

©istockphoto.com/alxpin

Theophilus Shickel Painter (1889–1969) was an American zoologist famous for his work on chromosomes. He became the distinguished Professor of Zoology at the University of Texas, and was its president during most of WW2 and until 1952.

By way of aside, during his presidency of the University he was named as official defendant in the landmark civil rights case Sweatt vs Painter. That legal stepping stone towards full integration of US education came about because one Hermon Sweatt had been denied admission to the University of Texas due to his race.1

Of course, the real number is actually 23 pairs, i.e. 46, not 48. But so powerful was the ‘authority’ of the distinguished Theophilus Painter, that this number was unchallenged for more than 30 years.

Well before that, though, Painter was renowned for having given the world the official number of chromosomes in each human cell. In 1921 he first used sperm cells to make the count under the microscope. Sperm cells and egg cells each contribute half the number, so this would presumably make it easier to count what was, using the methods of that time, a fairly tangled appearance. He arrived at the figure of 24, and is recorded as having said, “I feel confident that this is correct”. Repeats of his experiment by others gave the same count, so the total number of chromosomes, it was decided, must be 2 x 24, i.e. 48.

Of course, the real number is actually 23 pairs, i.e. 46, not 48. But so powerful was the ‘authority’ of the distinguished Theophilus Painter, that this number was unchallenged for more than 30 years. According to BBC commentator Robert Matthews, “For years biochemists refused to believe humans possess 23 pairs of chromosomes”.2 Why? “Because it contradicted the claims” of this “influential American zoologist”. So, “many ignored the evidence of their own eyes rather than challenge the great man”.2

It was only in 1956 that the process of breaking this spell really commenced in earnest. This was due to the publication of a paper by two researchers (Joe Hin Tijo and Albert Levan, in the Scandinavian journal Hereditas) who had used a different technique on body cells, rather than sex cells.

So, seeing what happened in the Painter debacle over such a straightforward thing as chromosome number, it should be no surprise to see so many scientists slavishly following the evolutionary line—regardless of the evidence.

Matthews indicates in another publication that the problem was not so much that Painter had blundered, but that “scientists had preferred to bow to authority rather than believe the evidence of their own eyes. Checking photographs of chromosomes reprinted in textbooks, researchers later found that 23 pairs were clearly shown—and yet captions under the photographs declared the figure to be 24.”3

Chromosome number is about operational science, the repeatable, observable facts about the world and how it works. Evolution, on the other hand, is about historical science, where the facts are not at issue—it’s all about interpretation. Evolution/long ages has become the ruling paradigm, a framework of thought that is taken for granted and is used as the foundation for how all other data is then interpreted. Scientists are continually confronted with not just one ‘Painter’, but scores of ‘authority figures’ proclaiming this framework as ‘fact’.

So, seeing what happened in the Painter debacle over such a straightforward thing as chromosome number, it should be no surprise to see so many scientists slavishly following the evolutionary line—regardless of the evidence.

Related Articles

Related Media

References and notes

  1. The state of Texas used legal manoeuvres to drag the case on for long enough for it to establish its own law school for blacks only. This school’s existence was then used by a state court as the basis for ruling that UT’s refusal did not infringe Sweatt’s constitutional rights to equal treatment. The US Supreme Court reversed this and ordered the university to admit Sweatt. Return to text.
  2. Issue 214 of www.bbcfocusmagazine.com, April 2010, p. 24. Return to text.
  3. Matthews, R., “The bizarre case of the chromosome that never was”, www.fortunecity.com/emachines/e11/86/cromsome.htm, accessed 11 August 2010. Return to text.

“One little bit doesn’t make a difference.” It’s a good job CMI didn’t think like that. We had to start somewhere producing information, one word and one article at a time. Similarly, please don’t think your small donation doesn’t help. They can add together to bring a shower of blessings. Support this site

Comments closed
Article closed for commenting.
Only available for 14 days from appearance on front page.
Readers’ comments
Russell F., Taiwan, 20 April 2012

Amen! This pre-suppositional thinking is rampant - viewing and therefore interpreting the same data through distorted lenses. I grew up with evolutionary, long-age lenses. This hindered me for years from accepting the Bible as the Word of God. After all, my science teachers were good decent people who were just teaching me the facts. Or so i thought. What i didn't know was that they themselves were held captive to a lie - however well-intentioned they may have been.

I praise God that He at last broke down my intellectual resistance to the truth of the Word of God as the self-interpreting Word of God. Twenty-five years later, i'm still astonished that i'd been so deluded for so long.

Truly, His Word is truth. Grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, as revealed (and interpreted!) through the Word of God alone, to the glory of God alone.

Please keep powering on in the Truth. The ministry God has given you is so utterly foundational and vital in setting the captives free - within even the church!

Steve A., United States, 21 April 2012

This was a great article showing how presuppositions have blinded the established scientific community, and I'm grateful that this ministry, and others, have opened my eyes to this kind of intellectual bullying.

However, this article does not show how evolutionists are guilty of presuppositional thinking, as other articles have shown (the last two paragraphs did not seem to fit the body of the article). The staunchly-held belief that there are 23 chromosomes instead of 24 was not equated in the article with evolutionary thinking.

I applaud the excellent research of CMI (and others) but we all need to be cautious on how we editorialize on such research.

Copied to clipboard
8538
Product added to cart.
Click store to checkout.
In your shopping cart

Remove All Products in Cart
Go to store and Checkout
Go to store
Total price does not include shipping costs. Prices subject to change in accordance with your country’s store.