From: allenroy (allenroy@peoplepc.com)
Date: Sat Oct 25 2003 - 19:05:14 EDT
The following is the lead article in the latest "Creation Matters," a popular
level Bi-monthly put out by CRS.
Dr. Kevin Anderson is the new director of the Van Andel Creation Research Center
in Chino Valley, AZ. owned and operated by CRS.
Allen Roy
Creation, Evolution and the Molecular Revolution
by Kevin L. Anderson, Ph.D.*
The last ten years have witnessed an explosion of scientific understanding in
the areas of genetics and molecular biology. On an ever-increasing level,
popular newspapers and magazines have feature articles on topics such as the
most recent discovery about the human genome or the molecular basis of various
diseases. The “molecular revolution” is in full stride, and the scientific
information being obtained weekly makes even next year’s textbooks hopelessly
outdated literally before the ink even dries.
Linking themselves closely to such discoveries, evolutionists are continually
insisting that these new genetic discoveries are providing the final and
ultimate proof of the evolutionary “theory” (some even insist such discoveries
would not have been possible without the guidance and insight of evolutionary
thinking). A letter in Current Biology (1996. 6:220) states, “most evolutionary
geneticists would agree that the major problems of the field have been solved.”
Another letter, in the August 2002 newsletter of the American Society for
Microbiology, argues that molecular biology has confirmed the claims of
evolution. Any lingering questions about the validity of evolution as a
historical event the authors dismiss by citing some recent genetic discoveries
and declaring, “case closed!”
This becomes the challenge of creationists — making our voices heard above this
over-hyped clatter. The simple fact is the case is not closed — far from it. In
fact, the scientific case for creation has never been stronger, and the claims
by evolutionists have never been weaker. This is because of, not in spite of,
these recent genetic discoveries.
Bacterial genes in humans
For example, while evolutionists gleefully point to the presence of bacterial
genes in the human genome as clear evidence of our shared evolutionary descent
with bacteria, this actually presents evolutionists with a serious dilemma. No
one claims humans descended from bacteria. Rather, bacteria and humans are
presumed to have shared an early, biologically “simple” ancestor. Did humans and
some bacteria retain genes from these earliest cells, while plants, yeast, and
even other bacteria lost them? Or, did several bacteria somehow introduce genes
into the early human evolutionary lineage that were retained by humans yet lost
by other mammals?
Evolutionists do not yet have a plausible explanation. In fact, as genomic
sequencing continues, I predict that many different bacterial genes will be
found in a variety of species. Are all these genes also a result of common
evolutionary ancestry from the earliest life form? Evolutionists will probably
soon find that the number of bacterial genes in various animal species is
greater than the plausible genome size of any proposed ancestral cell. Hence,
this ancient ancestor could not have been the source of all these “shared”
bacterial genes. The evolutionary source of these bacterial genes is ambiguous
at best, and provides no clear evidence for common evolutionary ancestry.
“Junk” DNA
The existence of so-called “junk” DNA in many species has also been heralded as
evidence of evolutionary descent. This DNA is claimed by many evolutionists to
be pieces of DNA left over from various evolutionary ancestors, but no longer
functional or needed by contemporary organisms. Such DNA is often pointed to as
a form of “vestigial organ” at the genomic level. But, as with vestigial organs,
“junk” DNA is not necessarily “leftover” junk. As research continues on the
genome, more is becoming understood about how chromosomes regulate and control
the genetic events in the cell. Already some portions of DNA, once thought to be
“junk,” appear to have key roles in the cell’s genetic activity.
What is more, even if some DNA is ultimately determined to be truly
nonfunctional, this is not contrary to a creation model. As mutations occur and
accumulate over numerous generations, certain genes may be lost (although
portions of their DNA remain). This has been demonstrated to readily occur in
bacteria, and almost certainly occurs in all living systems. This accumulation
of lost genetic function and activity neither violates nor conflicts with a
creation model. However, it does pose a problem for evolutionists when they
appeal to the same mutational process to create, rather than eliminate those
same genetic functions.
Universal genetic code
In addition, evolutionists have pointed to the universality of the genetic code
as an example of shared evolutionary history. The genetic code, as the reasoning
goes, was first formed in the earliest of cellular systems, and has remained
unchanged in all the contemporary evolutionary descendants — bacteria, archea,
yeast, plants, and animals. However, this is hardly contrary to a creation
model.
Moreover, even while evolutionists are claiming this is evidence for common
evolutionary descent, exceptions to the universality of the genetic code are
constantly being discovered. Yeast (such as Candida), other types of
microorganisms, and the mitochondria of mammalian cells have been found to
possess a genetic code that differs from the “universal” code. Such differences
are not readily explained by evolutionary descent, and do even contradict some
of the claims made by various evolutionists.
“Beneficial” mutations
A final point. Historically, evolutionists have pointed to the occurrence of
“beneficial” random mutations as a mechanism for evolutionary change and common
descent. However, molecular analysis of these “beneficial” mutations now reveals
a much different genetic event than is typically discussed in college evolution
textbooks. The simple fact that a particular random mutation may, for example,
enable an organism to grow faster or tolerate cold better (hence beneficial)
does not mean that particular mutation provides the genetic mechanism required
for evolutionary common descent. Unfortunately, this has become a major area of
confusion among both evolutionists and creationists.
Since evolution claims to account for the origin and diversity of all life on
this planet, then any proposed genetic mechanism for evolutionary descent must
provide a genetic explanation for the origin of cellular functions and activity.
However, all “beneficial” mutations (that I am aware of) actually involve
mutations that are the antithesis of that required for evolutionary common
descent. Such mutations cause the reduction or loss of regulatory proteins,
transport proteins, protein binding affinity, enzyme specificity, etc. In
certain instances, these mutations may enable the cell to replicate faster,
utilize a wider variety of substrates, or become resistant to a particular type
of antibiotic. Hence, they may impart a “beneficial” change to the cell.
But, regardless of any “beneficial” attribute, mutations that reduce or
eliminate any pre-existing system in the cell cannot be offered as the type of
mutation that provides a mechanism for how that system initially formed. This
would be analogous to removing an interior wall from a house. If a larger room
is desired, then the removal of the wall could be seen as “beneficial.” However,
the process by which the wall was removed could not be claimed to demonstrate
how that wall was originally built. Yet, this is exactly the claim evolutionists
continue to make. Perhaps this is because they have nothing else to offer.
*Dr. Anderson has a Ph.D. in microbiology and was an NIH Postdoctoral Fellow.
His prior experience includes that of assistant professor at Mississippi State
University and USDA/ARS-NSRIC research microbiologist. He brings with him
extensive knowledge and expertise in microbiology, biochemistry, and molecular
genetics.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Oct 25 2003 - 19:05:50 EDT