A Scientist Analyzes Mr. Wyatt's Chromosome Theory
Dr. Eugene Dunkley, Geneticist
August 1999, England
In regards to the statements made by Ron Wyatt and his chromosomal analysis: I do not believe that any of Ron's findings or conclusions will effect the Seventh Day Adventists or their faith. I don't believe that he had a crusade against the denomination or any denomination for that matter.
*** per Ron Wyatt findings - you must remember that Ron was NOT a scientist, he was an anesthetist. This is not to excuse any mistakes in his details, but to understand more accurately where he was coming from.
As I sat with Ron and Derek at D's house in Oxford and Ron explained to me what was done. I filled in the details in my own mind, knowing that there were holes in what he said, yet it was not done to deceive, just a lack of knowledge.
** Karyotypes are performed all the time. It is a technique in which the chromosomes are arrested in metaphase by a drug and then stained with either Giemsa or a reverse stain, and then in this stage are separated and counted and characterized. There is also a banding pattern associated with each chromosome pair so that identification of the chromosome is unmistakable. White blood cells are the only blood cells that can be used for such an "experiment". Russell's criticism is inaccurate because he omitted what would have had to happen for the experiment to take place.
- First, the blood sample was scrapped from the altar. The cells were resuspended in PBS (a buffer), which allowed the cells to re-hydrate.
Then, the cells were cultured. Only cells with DNA would be able to grow in culture, so there is no need to "separate" red blood cells, platelets, etc., because they simply wouldn't be present in a freshly growing culture. These cells were simply white blood cells in culture (a routine procedure).
- Next, the cells (or some of them) would be taken, arrested when the cells were in metaphase (when the chromosome condense and are visible by microscopy) and stained. Some of the stains allow light microscopy, but others allow fluorescent microscopy. I imagine that Ron didn't know one type of microcope from another; he could use an electron microscope to see the chromosomes, but certainly not to count them or characterize them. However, that would not detract from the finding. The karyotype would have been made, and the chromosomes placed in their proper pairs.
** Ron was convinced that the blood of the altar was in fact the divine blood of Jesus because the chromosome count was 24. If Jesus were ONLY human we would expect 46. In fact, if he found 46 chromosomes I would have my doubts because the argument would be that it was simply the blood of a human being (except of course that the white blood cells were re-vitalized after almost 2000 years? ).
- Russell is wrong about the frequency of chromosomal diseases in humans: a number of conditions involving either 47 or 45 chromosomes have been well characterized, besides Turner's, such as Klinefelters, Down's syndrome, Pateau's syndrome, Cri-de-Chat syndrome, XYY, XXY, etc.
** You must remember that Ron's inaccuracies in describing this finding are due to the fact that he did not personally do the experiments or prepare the cells, because it is not his field of expertise. He simply got the data and presented it with the understanding that he had. Russell may be correct about other aspects of the research (I am not an archaeologist), but he himself is not accurate about the cells and the chromosomes, and his critique suggests that he is being subjective.
Of course, I only have the description of what Ron said to me, so I too have no hard data. However, if there is a need to explain this data I would be happy to do so in defense of the findings. In fact, there are several more experiments that could be done to further prove what Ron stated.
However, I do not believe that they would be necessary, and in fact would cause a few problems (especially in this age of cloning, one would conceivably want to clone the divine chromosome and modify themselves). I do remember that Ron was reluctant to say anything about the finding, but he felt moved during his talk at our church, having met with me earlier, to say what he had found. He knew that I would have some knowledge of the field, and if in fact he thought it was dodgy { he would NOT have said anything because he knew that I would be one of the few people able to pick it apart.
---------------------------------------------------
** Definition of DODGY
1-chiefly British : evasive, tricky
2-chiefly British
a : not sound, good, or reliable
b : questionable, suspicious
3-chiefly British : requiring skill or care in handling or coping with — dodg·i·ness noun
-----------------------------------------------------
He said it in his sermon knowing that I would understand it, and I feel to this day that God moved on him to do so that the finding would be spoken of and would stand the test. This convinces me that Ron is right....
(This is the certification of the correctness of the Blood!)
*** this page courtesy anchorstone.com
... Brackets personal opinion added
|
|
|
Kerminator
|
|
CureZone