The Human Genome – The Case for a Creator
I must briefly comment on The History Channel’s recently aired two hour program titled “How Life Began.” I watched it, curious to find out what the latest thinking is regarding this subject. The show should have been titled “How DID Life Begin?” Throughout the program, we were taken through a Life Factory that can create living cells. In one segment, the “goop” destined to become a living cell, disappeared behind a curtain and the narrator said something like, “We don’t really know what happens behind that curtain, but somehow a living cell emerges.” The rest of the program (most of it) was a case study in Evolution. The program was full of speculative explanations for how life began and has “evolved” into the diversity we see today in the world around us. It made the case that everything has been figured out except for a few nagging details and none of the many difficulties with the Neo-Darwinian Theory of Evolution were discussed. In summary, there’s nothing new here. Click HERE for a more thorough review of the program.
Now, for the good stuff. I’ve been doing a lot of research on DNA, gene theory, etc. and find the topic fascinating. The complexity of DNA, coding and manufacturing mechanisms is astoundingly complex.
A few books I’ve read recently:
Genetics DeMystified by Edward Willet
Not by Chance – Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution by Dr. Lee Spetner
Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome by Dr. J.C. Sanford
The Spetner and Sanford books demonstrate some of the problems with Neo-Darwinian theory in the area of genetics.
Cells come in two main flavors; those with a well-defined nucleus surrounded by a membrane (eukaryotic) and those without a well-defined nucleus surrounded by a membrane (prokaryotic). All multicellular and some single celled organisms have eukaryotic cells. For the sake of brevity, the discussion will be limited to eukaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells are made of an outer membrane, nucleus, many organelles, and cytoplasm (click HERE for nice picture and more detail). The nucleus contains the DNA which is organized into pairs of chromosomes.
Human cells have 23 pairs of chromosomes for a total of 46. Each chromosome contains a continuous molecule (or strand) of DNA. Each DNA strand contains coding sequences called genes. Genes (genotype) determine the characteristics of an organism’s physical features (phenotype) such as hair color, size of nose, etc. Environmental factors also contribute to the physical characteristics of an organism such as how muscular an individual will be. For example, muscles grow when exercised regularly. Overall body size can increase/decrease depending on many factors such as diet.
Chromosomes in a pair have an identical set of genes, however, each chromosome may have a different version, called an allele, of each gene. When a chromosome pair has two different alleles of a gene, a factor called dominance comes into play that determines which allele will be expressed in the phenotype. This is the dominant/recessive trait concept that Gregor Mendel discovered in his research with pea plants in the 1860′s.
A chromosome is a DNA strand tightly wound into a spiral shape. The DNA molecule has two “vertebrate” made of alternating sugar (deoxyribose) and phosphate molecules. This double backbone, wound in a spiral shape, forms the double helix shape that DNA is famous for. Attached to each backbone are small nitrogenous base molecules made of oxygen and nitrogen atoms arranged in rings. There are four types of these bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C) and thymine (T). A weak hydrogen bond between the bases hold the two backbones together to form the DNA molecule structure. Adenine (A) always pairs with thymine (T) and guanine (G) always pairs with cytosine (C) to form the four possible “states” of a base pair: AT, TA, CG, GC. These four possible base pairs, when arranged in a sequence, form the DNA code that is used to sequence amino acids into protein molecules – the building blocks of life.
There are 20 amino acids used to build polypeptides called proteins and each is coded for by a sequence of three bases, called a codon, on one side of the DNA strand. For example, the “Asp” amino acid is coded for by the GAT and GAC base sequence. Since there are more codon sequences (4 possible bases, 3 bases long = 64 possible combinations) than amino acids (20), more than one codon can code for the same amino acid. There are also START and STOP codons that are used to frame the code sequence. Note: As a software developer myself, this sounds very similar to certain types of software programming languages.
The process used to manufacture proteins occurs in the following steps:
- An RNA polymerases enzyme unwinds a section of DNA that contains the gene for the protein being built
- The gene is copied into a sequence of nucleotides called messenger RNA or mRNA
- The mRNA chain leaves the nucleus of the cell into the cytoplasm and travels to the transcription location
- A ribosome protein attaches to the mRNA and facilitates the manufacture of the protein being manufactured
- Another type of RNA called transfer RNA (tRNA) transfer amino acids (like worker bees) to the ribosome in the sequence dictated by the mRNA
- Once the first amino acid has been delivered, the second amino acid is then delivered and they are joined
- The ribosome moves down the mRNA, one codon at a time, building the protein molecule from amino acids until it encounters the STOP codon
At this point the newly created protein is released to perform the function it was created to perform.
Following are a few excellent videos that show the process described above. The videos make a lot more sense if you have read all of the above information first as many of the key words used above are used in the videos.
NOTE: You may need to adjust the volume using the speaker icon on the video to hear the sound.
DNA Translation – process to manufacture proteins
This video shows real time simulation of:
Chromosome wrapping – process to wind up DNA into the shape a chromosome
DNA Replication – process to duplicate DNA in preparation for cell division
DNA Transcription – process to copy genes onto mRNA
DNA Translation – process to manufacture proteins
Unlocking the Mystery of Life – Discovery Institute
Implication of this Vast Complexity
The DNA mechanisms described above are found in all living things. The specific details of the mechanisms may vary by type of organism, but central to it all is the DNA code used to construct the organism. Does DNA and related processes represent irreducible complexity?
Consider what has to be present, simultaneously, in that infamous first cell that emerged from the primordial soup. A cell membrane is required to contain the contents of the cell and separate it from the environment. DNA code is required to build the cell membrane and all other components of the cell. RNA and ribosomes (or equivalent) are required to transcribe and translate the DNA code. Various proteins, enzymes, etc., are required to initiate and carry out cell division. All these things seem to be needed for basic functions of a cell, simultaneously.
Can common decent, natural selection, genetic mutations, etc. be invoked to create the first functioning cell? The answer is no. Why not? Prior to the first cell coming into existence, there were no decedents to select, no DNA to mutate, etc. Richard Dawkins, in his book, The Blind Watchmaker, makes the point that the reason a watch implies a designer is that the watch can’t replicate itself – it’s not a “replicator”. Living organisms, he says, can replicate themselves, and thus, genetic mutation and natural selection can drive increasing complexity in the offspring of replicators. Additionally, evolutionists argue that living things are exempt from the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, for similar reasons.
NOTE: The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that, without external intervention, “things” tend to become more disorganized over time.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19 For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20 For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21 For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things. – Romans 1 (ESV)
The sorts of “interventions” that may apply to a system rendering it open (and in the process the second law of thermodynamics not applicable) include energy from the sun flowing to Earth, for instance, and not necessarily the intervention of a personal being.
You’re absolutely right that when we start to ask origin of life questions we are not dealing with evolution – that applies to life once it exists. But the fact that a scientific theory doesn’t answer a question it isn’t supposed to and wasn’t designed to doesn’t strike me as a problem.
Given that the same sorts of arguments were made by Paley about the eye, and were subsequently undermined, isn’t the answer to simply let scientists continue to look for explanations, rather than saying “You can’t explain this, thus God did it” and leaving people with the impression that God has been disproven is science eventually does come up with an explanation?
I ask these questions as a Christian who used to be a young-earth creationist and who went on to discover that the basis for that was not only pseudoscience, but misunderstandings of the Bible as well – just so you know where I’m coming from.
James McGrath
2 Aug 08 at 8:27 pm
James,
Thanks for taking the time to comment. I hear the “Sun energy” argument all the time as the mechanism that overcomes the 2nd Law to drive complexity in living things. No one has explained exactly now this process would work in operational detail.
The Sun emits various kinds of radiation including heat, x-rays, etc. It is generally shown as an example in Thermodynamics textbooks how adding heat to a system INCREASES the entropy of the system. You can probably imagine many examples of the careless application of energy to a system that results in a higher state of disorder such as explosions. So, a blanket statement about the Sun allowing living things to overcome the 2nd Law is dubious. A form of energy along with a “plan” on how to apply it to a system is needed to reduce the entropy of a system (i.e. Maxwell’s Demon).
Some forms of radiation have been shown to cause genetic point mutations. Genetic mutation is the primary mechanism claimed by Neo-Darwinian Theory to provide the phenotype variation needed by the theory. However, there is much debate about ratio of bad (some), neutral (most) and good (rare) mutations and the possibility of meaningful information increase in DNA (informational entropy?). I’ve never seen a reference to a paper that has shown the evolution of a new gene (new meaningful information). All “micro” evolution, at the end of the day, has been shown to occur due to the loss of genetic information (less specificity).
Mark
Mark Duck
3 Aug 08 at 9:31 am
Hi Mark,
Great post! I also come from an engineering background (CS/EE) and was awestruck by the real time display of the various processes involved in manufacturing a specific protein. Having read your post on the 2nd law of thermodynamics, you can add another requirement for the first cell: the ability to harness an available source of energy to power these various nano machines, which is not an easy task. Not to mention other machines not mentioned for moving raw and processed materials to where they are needed. Irreducibly complex indeed!
The current atheistic thought on the origin of life seams to revolve around self-organizing nano structures (eg. ice crystals) But to get life, one must include the minimum complexity of a hereditary mechanism in order to jump start natural selection. I know of no way around this.
I’m looking forward to future articles!
Berean
4 Aug 08 at 11:29 pm
[...] also a good argument on intelligent design, although for that I usually just check to see what Mark and Henry have to [...]
And you thought rational debate on the internet was impossible! : Pursuing Holiness
7 Oct 08 at 2:15 pm
Mark – in response to “I’ve never seen a reference to a paper that has shown the evolution of a new gene (new meaningful information)” try googling for ‘evolution of a new gene’ (http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=evolution+of+a+new+gene). Many of these depend on loss of information, but many others occur due to substitution or other errors (where the quantity of information remains constant, but some of the ‘spelling’ changes), and still others because of an increase in information.
For a slightly more comprehensible example try http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/08/regulatory_evolution_of_the_ho.php – it explains a change that’s not only an increase in information, but also the evolution of an irreducible system.
Paul
9 Oct 08 at 3:42 am
Paul,
Thanks for your feedback. I read the article you reference. It is indeed amazing what can be done with the tools available to the geneticist today. It’s fascinating that they can play “Lego blocks” with DNA to see what will happen.
However, when statements such as “About half a billion years ago, there was a massive set of gene duplications in the vertebrate lineage” or “The hybrid gene is not completely identical to the ancient one, but the scientists say it performs essentially the same functions” are made, I have to wonder, “How do they know?” Do they posses DNA matter from the ancient organism so the exact comparison can be made?
Probably not. They likely compare DNA of an organism that exists today that they believe is in the ancestral line of the mouse such as a fish. This is evidenced by the following comment in the article: “The ancestral state the authors are studying would have been present in a fish in the Cambrian.”
Also, the starting point in the discussion is that evolution is fact. Thus one can conclude that with gene duplications and further evolution, new genes are created. This enables statements such as “What it also is is an example of is an increase in complexity, and the evolution of an irreducible system.”
Sorry if I don’t seem convinced. In this case, you have to “assume” evolution produced the difference in the DNA of the mouse and whatever they were comparing the mouse DNA to (the ancient DNA). The premise is as questionable as the conclusion (i.e circular reasoning).
Mark Duck
9 Nov 08 at 3:08 pm
I love your site!!! Although I don’t agree with all your points, it is EXACTLY what I’ve been looking for – discussing the ideas instead of “your wrong and I’m right and I’m not willing to consider other ideas” mentality.
I just wrote a blog on this very subject. (though not as eloquently as you) I once had a microbiology assignment to search for the first cell. What I discovered was incredibly complex. You have to have at least 12 proteins, a DNA molecule of at least 30 000 base pairs, ATP, NADPH, and a semi-permeable cell wall encasing it all. If any one of these is missing or a tiny percentage of amino acids or nucleotides is out of place or there is a rupture in the cell wall, replication does not take place and there is no first cell. It seems extremely improbable that this could happen by chance. I have seen no satisfactory models for the first cell. This is one of the aspects of the discussion that has me tending away from evolution as the explanation for our existence.
Wes Hubert
10 Jan 09 at 7:30 am