THE BIBLE AND THE LAWS OF SCIENCE:<R>THE LAWS OF GENETICS
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D.
[EDITORS' NOTE: In the June, 1989 issue of `Reason & Revelation' we
presented the first in a non-consecutive series of articles on "The
Bible and the Laws of Science." The second article appeared in March,
1990. We hope you enjoy this article, the third in the series.]
One of the newest, and certainly one of the most exciting, of the
sciences is that of genetics. After all, every living thing---plant,
animal, or human---is a storehouse of genetic information, and
therefore a potential "laboratory" full of scientific knowledge.
Studies have shown that the hereditary information found within the
nucleus of the living cell is placed there in a chemical "code," and
that it is universal in nature. Regardless of their respective views on
origins, all scientists acknowledge this. Evolutionist Richard Dawkins,
in his book, `The Blind Watchmaker' (1986, p 270), stated what all
scientists today know to be the truth of the matter when he noted that:
"The genetic code is universal.... The complete word-for-word
universality of the genetic dictionary is, for the taxonomist, too much
of a good thing." Creationist Robert Kautz, in his book, `The Origin of
Living Things' (1988, p 44) likewise agrees when he says, "It is
recognized by molecular biologists that the genetic code is universal,
irrespective of how different living things are in their external
However, it is not simply the fact that the genetic code is
universal in nature which makes its study so appealing. The function of
this code is equally intriguing. A.E. Wilder-Smith, an eminent
scientist with the United Nations, has observed: "The construction and
metabolism of a cell are thus dependent upon its internal `handwriting'
in the genetic code. Everything, even life itself, is regulated from a
biological viewpoint by the information contained in this genetic code.
All syntheses are directed by this information" (1976, p 254). Since
all living things are storehouses of genetic information (i.e., the
genetic code), and since it is this genetic code which regulates life
and directs all its syntheses, the importance of the study of this code
(genetics) can hardly be overstated. The renowned British geneticist,
E.B. Ford, in his work, `Understanding Genetics', has provided an
insightful summary in this regard:
It may seem a platitude to say that the offspring of
buttercups, sparrows and human beings are buttercups,
sparrows and human beings.... What then keeps them,
and indeed living things in general, "on the right
lines"? Why are there not pairs of sparrows, for instance,
that beget robins, or some other species of bird: why
indeed birds at all? Something must be handed on from
parent to offspring which ensures conformity, not complete
but in a high degree, and prevents such extreme departures.
What is it, how does it work, what rules does it obey and
why does it apparently allow only limited variation?
Genetics is the science that endeavours to answer these
questions, and much else besides. It is the study of
organic inheritance and variation, if we must use more
formal language (1979, p 13).
We know, of course, that sparrows, buttercups, and human beings
give rise only to sparrows, buttercups, and human beings. But we know
this today because of our in-depth knowledge of genetics---the study of
inheritance. However, it has not always been so. The history of how we
stumbled upon this knowledge, and thus this new science, provides an
interesting, and profitable, case study.
THE ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF GENETICS
There can be no doubt that genetics is deeply rooted in antiquity.
While the ancients did not understand the genetic principles involved,
or their basis in such a complex chemical code, evidence exists which
documents that they knew enough to use selective breeding, various
forms of hybridization, etc. Eldon Gardner, in his classic work, `The
History of Biology', suggests:
Tablets of stone prepared by the Babylonians some 6,000 years
ago have been interpreted as showing pedigrees of several
successive generations of horses, thus suggesting a conscious
effort toward improvement. Other stone carvings of the same
period illustrate artificial cross-pollination of the date
palm as practiced by the early Babylonians. The early Chinese,
many years before the Christian era, improved varieties of rice.
Maize was cultivated and improved in the western hemisphere by
the American Indians, beginning at an early period in their
history. In another era, Hippocrates, Aristotle, and other Greek
philosophers made observations and speculations suggesting
genetic principles (1972, pp 399,400).
Various writers have chronicled early attempts at hybridization,
selection, etc. (see Suzuki and Knudtson, 1989, pp 32-35). But it is
unanimously agreed that the true origin of the science we call genetics
had its origin in 1865, as the result of studies performed by an
Augustinian monk, Gregor Mendel (1865). In 1857, Mendel began a series
of experiments in the garden of the abbey in Br�nn, Austria, using
edible peas (`Pisum sativum'). For eight years he worked with these
peas. The story of Mendel's research is too lengthy to recount here in
its entirety. It has, however, been recorded by numerous writers (see:
Edey and Johanson, 1989, pp 108-122; Suzuki and Knudtson, 1989, pp 35-
38; Asimov, 1972, pp 366-368; Gardner, 1972, pp 401-403).
Mendel carefully self-pollinated the peas. He collected the seeds
from one generation and replanted them. He studied the height (stem
length), color, and seed texture of the peas. He also cross-pollinated
the peas, to further study these traits. He kept meticulous
mathematical records of each generation's activity---records upon which
the "laws of genetics" would ultimately be based. Prior to Mendel, it
was commonly believed that traits were transmitted along blood lines as
unseen and undefined substances which somehow intermingled to produce
offspring. In addition, scientists accepted the idea that traits
"blended" as they were passed from generation to generation. Mendel's
work proved otherwise. He discovered that traits were transmitted by
some kind of "particles"---borne by both members of the species---which
retained their own specific identity even while being shuffled into new
combinations during reproduction. Mendel called these particles by the
German word, `Anlagen'. Today we know these as "genes" which are
constructed of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA).
Mendel's accomplishments can hardly be overstated. Richard von
Mises has observed that Mendel's work "...plays in genetics a role
comparable to that of Newton's laws in mechanics" (1968, p 243). Edey
and Johanson echo that same sentiment: "Mendel was certain that his
hypothesis was correct: hereditary traits of living things come in
separate packages; they do not blend; they behave according to simple
mathematical laws; some are dominant and `show,' while others are
recessive and lie `hidden' unless present in the pure state. This was a
momentous insight. It became the keystone for the great edifice of
genetic knowledge that would be erected in the following century"
(1989, p 114). In summary, Davis and Kenyon have listed what we now
call "Mendel's laws."
He [Mendel---<MS>BT'] brilliantly concluded that inheritance
is determined by six principles:
1. The inheritance of traits is determined by (what were later
termed) genes that act more like individual physical
particles than like fluid.
2. Genes come in pairs for each trait, and the genes of a pair
may be alike or different.
3. When genes controlling a particular trait are different, the
effect of one is observed (dominant) in the offspring, while
the other one remains hidden (recessive).
4. In gametes (eggs and sperm) only one gene of each pair is
present. At fertilization gametes unite randomly, which
results in a predictable ratio of traits among offspring.
5. The genes controlling a particular trait are separated
during gamete-formation; each gamete carries only one
gene of each pair.
6. When two pairs of traits are studied in the same cross,
they are found to sort independently of each other.
While Mendel's principles have been expanded and refined, they
still remain basically sound today (1989, p 60).
In 1866, Mendel's work was published in the `Transactions of the
Natural History Society of Br�nn'. For thirty-five years Mendel's work
sat on library shelves, unknown to all but a few, and causing no great
interest among them. Then, in 1900, three scientists, working
independently of one another, rediscovered Mendel's works. Hugo de
Vries (a Dutchman), Karl Correns (a German), and Erich Tschermak (an
Austrian) simultaneously read Mendel's works and published their own
papers on similar matters, each crediting Mendel. De Vries is credited
with discovering genetic mutations (changes in the genes and/or
chromosomes, producing offspring unlike the parents). In 1902, Theodor
Boveri (German embryologist), and W.S. Sutton (American cytologist),
building on the work of another German embryologist, Wilhelm Roux,
documented that Mendel's `Anlagen' (genes) were distributed throughout
the body on chromosomes. In 1903, Wilhelm L. Johannsen, a Danish
botanist, coined the term "gene," which is still in use today. In 1906,
at a meeting of the Royal Horticultural Society, the English biologist,
William Bateson, offered the term "genetics" as the name for this new
science. Finally, Mendel's works were bearing fruit.
Mendel died in 1884, never realizing that he was to become the
"Father of Genetics." Many scientists since him have added to the
knowledge he gave us about this important science. It would be almost a
futile task to try to mention, or give credit to, all of them. But
certainly the science of genetics was greatly advanced by the
discovery, in 1953, of the chemical code which provides the genetic
instructions. It was in that year that James Watson and Francis Crick
published their landmark paper about the helical structure of the DNA
molecule (1953). In 1962, they were awarded the Nobel Prize in
medicine and physiology for their achievement in elucidating the
structure of DNA. Thaxton, Bradley, and Olsen, in their book, `The
Mystery of Life's Origin', have remarked:
According to their now-famous model, hereditary information
is transmitted from one generation to the next by means of a
simple code resident in the specific sequence of certain
constituents of the DNA molecule.... The breakthrough by
Crick and Watson was their discovery of the specific key to
life's diversity. It was the extraordinarily complex yet
orderly architecture of the DNA molecule. They had discovered
that there is in fact a code inscribed in this "coil of life,"
bringing a major advance in our understanding of life's
remarkable structure (1984, p 1).
Space prevents an in-depth examination of the inner workings of the
DNA molecule. Excellent summaries, however, are available (Kautz, 1988,
pp 43-47; Davis and Kenyon, 1989, pp 62-64; Suzuki and Knudtson, 1989,
pp 41-45). Just how important is this "coil of life" which is
represented in the DNA molecule? A.E. Wilder-Smith reminds us that
"the information stored on the DNA-molecule is that which controls
totally, as far as we at present know, by its interaction with its
environment, the development of all biological organisms" (1987, p 73).
Professor E.H. Andrews explains how this can be true: "The way the DNA
code works is this. The DNA molecule is like a template or pattern for
the making of other molecules called `proteins'.... These proteins then
control the growth and activity of the cell which, in turn, controls
the growth and activity of the whole organism" (1978, p 28). Thus, the
DNA contains the information which allows proteins to be manufactured,
and the proteins control cell growth and function, which are ultimately
responsible for each living organism. The genetic code, then, as found
within the DNA molecule, is vital to life as we know it.
THE LAWS OF GENETICS AND THE BIBLE
There are at least two important points which relate genetics
directly to the Bible, and which will be discussed here. First, the
genetic code's chemical instructions are copied faithfully time after
time. In other words, to use Dr. Ford's earlier examples, sparrows
produce only sparrows, buttercups produce only buttercups, and human
beings produce only human beings. Sparrows never produce robins;
buttercups never produce tulips; human beings never produce anything
but other human beings. Second, the genetic code---with its complexity,
orderliness, and function---provides the most powerful kind of evidence
for intelligent design, which requires a Designer. Let us examine
briefly these two important points.
The biblical record is quite clear when it comes to the first of
these two points---that the genetic code was designed to faithfully
copy itself. In Genesis 1:11,12 we read: "And God said, let the earth
put forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding
fruit after its kind, wherein is the seed thereof upon the earth, and
it was so. And the earth brought forth grass, the herb yielding seed
and the fruit tree yielding fruit after its kind whose seed was in
itself." This same wording---after its kind---is repeated in such
passages as Genesis 1:20,21 and Genesis 1:24,25. A comparison of
similar passages (e.g., Leviticus 11:13-23) provides additional
dramatic emphasis of the importance of this phrase. Byron Nelson,
author of the classic work, `After Its Kind', offers the following
commentary on these statements of Scripture:
In the first chapter of Genesis, however, because it is a
matter of the greatest religious importance, the Bible speaks
clearly and finally on a matter of biology. After its kind is
the statement of a biological principle that no human
observation has ever known to fail. The most ancient human
records engraved on stone or painted on the walls of caves
bear witness to the fact that horses have ever been horses,
bears have ever been bears, geese have ever been geese,
reindeer have ever been reindeer. The most desperate and
subtle efforts of man in modern times have been unable to
alter this divine decree. The Bible teaches that from the
beginning there have been a large number of types of living
things, man included, which were so created as to remain true
to their particular type throughout all generations.... The
latest results of modern biological research, Mendel's Laws,
agree exactly with what was written by Moses three thousand
years ago---and they also elucidate it... (1967,pp 3,103, emp.
Even evolutionists are hard-pressed to avoid the implications. In
his presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement
of Science, William Bateson, the English biologist who first coined the
term "genetics," made this startling admission: "Descent used to be
described in terms of blood. Truer notions of genetic physiology are
given by the Hebrew expression `seed.' If we say he is `of the seed of
Abraham,' we feel something of the permanence and indestructibility of
that germ which can be divided and scattered among nations, but remains
recognizable in type and characteristic after 4,000 years" (1914, emp.
in orig.). Seventy-five years later, not much had changed. Suzuki and
Knudtson opine, for example:
Yet long before the concept of the "gene" crystallized in
human consciousness early in this century, human beings felt
compelled to search for ways to make sense of at least the
most visible evidence of biological inheritance that
surrounded them. For they could not help noticing the
recurring pattern of reproduction in the natural world by
which every form of life seemed to generate new life---
"according to its own kind." The keen-eyed agriculturalists
among them could not have missed the similarity between
successive generations of livestock and crops. Nor was it
possible to ignore the sometimes uncanny resemblances between
members of one's own immediate family or ancestral lineage
(1989, p 32).
Suzuki and Knudtson, however, suggest that these poor humans lived
in a state of "scientific innocence" and that they could thus be
excused for not knowing any better. But is it a state of "scientific
innocence" to accept what is today a fact of science? Listen to John
Gribbin, himself an evolutionist, when he says that "...once a
fertilized, single human cell begins to develop, the original plans are
faithfully copied each time the cell divides (a process called mitosis)
so that every one of the thousand million million cells in my body, and
in yours, contains a perfect replica of the original plans for the
whole body" (1981, p 193). Did Dr. Gribbin say that these original
plans (i.e., the genetic code) are faithfully copied so that every one
of the trillions of cells in the human body ends up with a perfect
replica of that genetic code? Indeed he did! Dr. Wilder-Smith speaks to
this very point when he says:
The Nobel laureate, F.H. Crick has said that if one were to
translate the coded information on one human cell into book
form, one would require one thousand volumes each of five
hundred pages to do so. And yet the mechanism of a cell can
copy faithfully at cell division all this information of one
thousand volumes each of five hundred pages in just twenty
minutes (1976, p 258, emp. added).
Why do sparrows produce nothing but sparrows? Why do buttercups
produce nothing but buttercups? Why do human beings produce nothing but
human beings? The reason is simple: all organisms reproduce faithfully
copies of their own genetic code. Dr. Bateson spoke of the permanence
and indestructibility of the "seed." Dr. Gribbin says the code is
faithfully copied. Suzuki and Knudtson comment on the recurring pattern
of reproduction. It matters little what terms these evolutionists use:
they are still doing nothing more than mimicking, and acknowledging,
what the Bible writer said thousands of years ago---that all living
things reproduce "after their kind."
Today, of course, evolutionists offer up a vain attempt to get
around the laws of genetics, and thus provide a mechanism for
evolution, by postulating hundreds or thousands of "good" mutations
which can alter the genetic code in a way beneficial to evolution. We
have dealt with this elsewhere (Thompson, 1985), and shown the paucity
of such a system. The simple truth of the matter is that the Bible has
been right all along. The genetic code ensures that living things
reproduce faithfully---after their kind---exactly as the laws of
genetics state that they should.
There is good reason why organisms should reproduce "after their
kind"---the complexity of the genetic code. It is doubtful that you
will ever hear anyone cognizant of the facts speak of the "simple"
genetic code. A.G. Cairns-Smith explains why:
Every organism has in it a store of what is called genetic
information.... I will refer to an organism's genetic
information store as its Library.... Where is the Library
in such a multicellular organism? The answer is everywhere.
With a few exceptions every cell in a multicellular organism
has a complete set of all the books in the Library. As such
an organism grows its cells multiply and in the process the
complete central Library gets copied again and again.... The
human Library has 46 of these cord-like books in it. They are
called chromosomes. They are not all of the same size, but an
average one has the equivalent of about 20,000 pages.... Man's
Library, for example, consists of a set of construction and
service manuals that run to the equivalent of about a million
book-pages together (1985, pp 9,10, emp. in orig.).
It is no less amazing to learn that even "simple" cells like bacteria
have extremely complicated "libraries" of genetic information stored
within them. For example, the bacterium `Escherichia coli', which is by
no means the "simplest" bacterial cell known, is a tiny rod only a
thousandth of a millimeter across and about twice as long, yet "it is
an indication of the sheer complexity of `E. coli' that its Library
runs to a thousand page-equivalent" (Cairns-Smith, 1985, p 11).
It doesn't take much convincing, beyond facts such as these, to see
that the genetic code is orderly, complex, and adept in its functions.
The order and complexity themselves are nothing short of phenomenal.
But the functioning of this code is perhaps most impressive of all.
Dr. Wilder-Smith explains why when he comments that the coded
...may be compared to a book or to a video---or audiotape,
with an extra factor coded into it enabling the genetic
information, under certain environmental conditions, to
read itself and then to execute the information it reads. It
resembles, that is, a hypothetical architect's plan of a
house, which plan not only contains the information on how
to build the house, but which can, when thrown into the
garden, build entirely of its own initiative the house all
on its own without the need for contractors or other outside
building agents. Such a plan could, when thrown into the
garden, build the house---providing it finds the correct
conditions and energy supply for the "internal" contractors
who build the house. It does this construction work entirely
autonomously, working on the pure information which it
contains. Thus, it is fair to say that the technology
exhibited by the genetic code is orders of magnitude higher
than any technology man has, until now, developed. What is
its secret? The secret lies in its ability to store and to
execute incredible magnitudes of conceptual information in
the ultimate molecular miniaturization of the information
storage and retrieval system of the nucleotides and their
sequences (1987, p 73, emp. in orig.).
Kautz follows this same line of thinking when he says that:
The information in DNA is sufficient for directing and
controlling all the processes which transpire within a
cell including diagnosing, repairing, and replicating the
cell. Think of an architectural blueprint having the
capacity of actually building the structure depicted on
the blueprint, of maintaining that structure in good repair,
and even replicating it (1988, p 44).
Little wonder, then, that Kautz concludes: "The DNA molecule is
something utterly unique and had to have an unnatural or supernatural
origin.... The information in the DNA molecule had to have been imposed
upon it by some outside source just as music is imposed on a cassette
tape. The information in DNA is presented in coded form as explained
previously, and codes are not known to arise spontaneously" (1988, p
44, emp. in orig.).
Many people, perhaps, have not considered the terminology with
which evolutionists describe the genetic code. Lester and Bohlin
suggest that this provides a major clue as to DNA's origin:
The DNA in living cells contains coded information. It is
not surprising that so many of the terms used in describing
DNA and its functions are language terms. We speak of the
genetic code. DNA is transcribed into RNA. RNA is translated
into protein. Protein, in a sense, is coded in a foreign
language from DNA. RNA could be said to be a dialect of DNA.
Such designations are not simply convenient or just
anthropomorphisms. They accurately describe the situation
(1984, pp 85,86, emp. in orig.).
Further, consider that human beings have learned to store information
on clay tablets, stone, papyrus, paper, film, cassettes, microchips,
etc. Yet "human technology has not yet advanced to the point of storing
information chemically as it is in the DNA molecule" (Kautz, 1988, emp.
in orig.). Professor Andrews is correct when he states:
It is not possible for a code, of any kind, to arise by chance
or accident. The laws of chance or probability have been
worked out by mathematics... A code is the work of an
intelligent mind. Even the cleverest dog or chimpanzee could
not work out a code of any kind. It is obvious then that chance
cannot do it.... This could no more have been the work of
chance or accident than could the "Moonlight Sonata" be played
by mice running up and down the keyboard of my piano! Codes do
not arise from chaos (1978, pp 28,29).
Dr. Wilder-Smith offers this important observation:
Now, when we are confronted with the genetic code, we are
astounded at once at its simplicity, complexity and the
mass of information contained in it. One cannot avoid being
awed at the sheer density of information contained in such a
miniaturized space. When one considers that the entire
chemical information required to construct a man, elephant,
frog or an orchid was compressed into two minuscule
reproductive cells, one can only be astounded. Only a sub-
human could not be astounded. The almost inconceivably
complex information needed to synthesize a man, plant, or a
crocodile from air, sunlight, organic substances, carbon
dioxide and minerals is contained in these two tiny cells.
If one were to request an engineer to accomplish this
feat of information miniaturization, one would be considered
fit for the psychiatric line.... To maintain that it all
arose by chance and non-planning is to deny human common
sense. Pole has become antipole.... The almost unimaginable
complexity of the information on the genetic code along with
the simplicity of its concept (four letters made of simple
chemical molecules), together with its extreme compactness,
imply an inconceivably high intelligence behind it. Present-
day information theory permits no other interpretation of
the facts of the genetic code (1976, pp 257-259, emp. in orig.).
Isn't this, after all, exactly what the Bible has stated all along?
The Hebrew writer (3:4) put it in these words: "Every house is builded
by someone, but he that built all things is God." From the microcosmos
to the macrocosmos the handiwork of the Creator is evident. The genetic
code, and the laws of genetics based upon that code, speak eloquently
to the existence of the great Creator-God of the Bible. Things still
reproduce "after their kind" just as He designed them "in the
beginning." Man's genetic laws express little more than what God set
into motion from time immemorial.
Andrews, E.H. (1978), `From Nothing to Nature '(Hertfordshire,
England: Evangelical Press).
Asimov, Isaac (1972), `Isaac Asimov's Biographical Encyclopedia of
Science and Technology' (New York: Avon).
Bateson, William (1914), `Nature', August 20.
Cairns-Smith, A.G. (1985), `Seven Clues to the Origin of Life
(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
Davis, Percival and Dean Kenyon (1989), `Of Pandas and People'
(Dallas, TX: Haughton).
Dawkins, Richard (1986), `The Blind Watchmaker' (New York: W.W.
Edey, Maitland and Donald C. Johanson (1989), `Blueprints: Solving the
Mystery of Evolution' (Boston: Little, Brown & Co.).
Ford, E.B. (1979), `Understanding Genetics' (New York: Pica Press).
= Gardner, Eldon J. (1972), `The History of Biology,' 3rd edition
Minneapolis, MN: Burgess Publishing).
Gribbin, John (1981), `Genesis: The Origins of Man and the Universe'
(New York: Delacorte Press).
Kautz, Darrel (1988), `The Origin of Living Things' (Milwaukee, WI:
Privately published by the author).
Lester, Lane and Raymond Bohlin (1984), `The Natural Limits of
Biological Change' (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan).
Mendel, Gregor (1865), `Experiments in Plant Hybridization', reprinted
in J.A. Peters, ed. (1959), `Classic Papers in Genetics' (Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall).
Nelson, Byron (1967), `After Its Kind' (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker).
Suzuki, David and Peter Knudtson (1989), `Genethics' (Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press).
Thaxton, Charles, Walter Bradley, and Roger Olsen (1984), `The Mystery
of Life's Origin' (New York: Philosophical Library).
Thompson, Bert (1985), "Neo-Darwinism: A Look at the Alleged Genetic
Mechanism of Evolution" [a manuscript] (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics
von Mises, Richard (1968), `Positivism' (New York: 1968).
Watson, J.D. and Francis Crick (1953), `Nature', 171:137ff.
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1976), `A Basis for a New Biology' (Einigen: Telos
Wilder-Smith, A.E. (1987), `The Scientific Alternative to Neo-
Darwinian Evolutionary Theory' (Costa Mesa, CA: TWFT Publishers).
(C) 1991 Apologetics Press, Inc All Rights Reserved
230 Landmark Drive
Montgomery, AL 36117-2752
Index - Evolution or Creation1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | 44 | 45 | 46 | 47 | 48 | 49 | 50 | 51 | 52 | 53 | 54 | 55 | 56 | 57 | 58 | 59 | 60 | 61 | 62 | 63 | 64 | 65 | 66 | 67 | 68 | 69 | 70 | 71 | 72 | 73 | 74 | 75 | 76 | 78 | 79 | 80 | 81 | 82 | 83 | 84 | 85 | 86 | 87 | 88 | 89 | 90 | 91 | 92 | 93 | 94 | 95 | 96 | 97 | 98 | 99 | 100 | 101 | 102 | 103 | 104 | 105 | 106 | 107 | 108 | 109 | 110 | 111 | 112 | 113 | 114 | 115 | 116 | 117 | 118 | 119 | 120 | 121 | 122 | 123 | 124 | 125 | 126 | 127 | 128 | 129 | 130 | 131 | 132 | 133 | 135 | 136 | 137 | 138 | 139 | 140 | 141 | 142 | 143 | 144 | 145 | 146 | 147 | 148 | 149 | 150 | 151 | 152 | 153 | 154 | 155 | 156 | 157 | 158 | 159 | 160 | 161 | 162 | 163 | 164 | 165 | 166 | 168 | 169 | 170 | 171 | 172 | 173 | 174 | 175 | 176 | 177 | 178 | 179 | 180 | 181 | 182 | 183 | 184 | 185 | 186 | 187 | 188 | 189 | 190 | 191 | 192 | 193 | 194 | 195 | 196 | 197 | 198 | 199 | 200 | 201 | 202 | 203 | 204 | 205 | 206 | 207 | 208 | 209 | 210 | 211 | 212 | 213 | 214 | 215 | 216 | 217 | 218 | 219 | 220 | 221 | 222 | 223 | 224 | 225 | 226 | 227 | 228 | 229 | 230 | 231