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.


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.


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.

in orig.).

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

Apologetics Press

230 Landmark Drive

Montgomery, AL 36117-2752

Index - Evolution or Creation

1 | 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