99% Chimp... but also 35% Daffodil?

"In the context of a 35% similarity to a daffodil, the 99.44% of the DNA of human to chimp doesn’t seem so remarkable. After all, humans are obviously a heck of a lot more similar to chimpanzees than to daffodils. More than that, to say that humans are over one-third daffodil is more ludicrous than profound. There are hardly any comparisons you can make to a daffodil in which humans are 33% similar." ~ Dr. Jonathan Marks, What it Means to be 95% Chimpanzee: Apes, People, and their Genes

You have probably heard it before, "Humans are 99% chimp!" The percentage number of genetic similarity reported ranges from 90-99% (the actual number is probably closer to 90% when one takes into account indels--insertions and deletions in the DNA sequences--but that is not really important for our purposes here). This statement is based on work done by Mary-Claire King and A. C. Wilson in 1975. Their work showed several human and chimpanzee proteins display a 99% agreement in amino acid sequence. This indicated that humans and chimpanzees are closer genetic relatives than anyone at that time had thought. Soon popular evolutionary news caught wind of this and the field has never been the same since. It seems like compelling evidence for an Darwinian paradigm. Is it?

Not really, actually. As Dr. Marks states above, we could also say that humans are 35% daffodil based on this method of comparison, which is absurd. Comparisons based on the percent similarity of genetic sequences is basically meaningless. It being meaningless has led others, like Science correspondent Jon Cohen, to write, "Now it’s totally clear that it’s [the 99% genetic similarity] more a hindrance for understanding than a help." Most of the scientific community that supports naturalistic evolution has largely abandoned this comparison since it has no value. Yet, this icon of evolution is still floating around in popular media and text books.

Why does this comparison have little value? Well, let me try to explain it using an example. Assume that you and I each have a box of colored pencils. Each of our boxes contains 100 pencils. When we compare the boxes we find that 99 of our colors are the same and we each have one color the other does not have. If we each start to draw are we going to come up with pictures that are 99% similar? No, of course not. Why? Because the pictures depend not so much on the colored pencils we use but on the way we express ourselves in our drawings, how the colored pencils are used functionally. We may be using the same supplies but we would use them in vastly different ways. Well, genes are like that. Genetic similarity in organisms counts for nothing, it is how the genes are expressed that really matters. Having similar genes means nothing because functionally they operate very differently in different organisms.

Recent work on the FOXP2 gene creates a great example of this. (This is going to get a little technical but I think it is very helpful in illustrating my point above with an important, real-life example.) This gene has gotten a lot of attention lately because of its importance to language capability. This gene codes for a DNA-binding protein, which are proteins used in differential gene regulation--the controlling of activity in genes much like a volume control. They can turn genes "on" or "off" or regulate their activeness anywhere in between. The FOXP2 gene plays this role in humans and other organisms, like chimpanzees.

In humans this gene is critical for language capability. A study done by the Max Plank Institute (published in Nature in 2001) showed that any modification of this gene in humans cripples language capability. It not only disables the ability of the humans to make the sounds necessary for language but it also disables their ability to comprehend language completely. In this study they also looked at the amino acids that make up the protein that this gene produces--the FOXP2 protein--in chimps, mice, and humans. Out of the 715 amino acids that make up the protein in chimps, mice, and humans, the mouse and human protein differed by only three amino acids and the chimp human protein differed by only two amino acids (that is about a 0.3% difference).

In a recent paper also published in Nature, a team of scientists from several universities reported on an analysis they did of how this difference in the FOXP2 gene for humans and chimps affected biological development. In order to study the effect they culture two sets of neurons that had the FOXP2 gene removed from them. (They did this so they could have the same starting point for each gene they were studying.) In one set they introduced the human FOXP2 gene and in another set they introduced the chimp FOXP2 gene. They then observed how the neurons were affected by the different genes. What they found was profound. In the set of neurons with the human gene there were 60 other genes that were up-regulated (more active) by this protein compared to the chimp neurons and there were 50 other genes that were down-regulated (less active) by this protein compared to the chimp neurons. So, the introduction of one human gene that is 99.7% similar to the chimp version of the gene had a profound affect on 110 other genes in development! A two-out-of-715 amino acid difference had significant biological consequences.

This study illustrates how a 90-99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps really means nothing. Even if one were to grant that the similarity is 99% (as I briefly mentioned above, the number is closer to 90%), that 1% genetic difference has profound implications when it comes to gene expression in each species. Gene similarity is meaningless. Gene expression is what is important.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Hawking's God

"But contrary to what Hawking claims, physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe. Laws themselves do not create anything, they are merely a description of what happens under certain conditions." Dr. John Lennox, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Oxford, writing for Mail Online

Recently Stephen Hawking, while promoting his new (yet-to-be-published) book The Grand Design, has made a few highly controversial statements. In an interview Hawking stated, "Because there is a law such as gravity, the Universe can and will create itself from nothing... Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the Universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the Universe going." Dr. Lennox responded to Hawking's statement in an article for Mail Online where he says what I have quoted above. I wanted to write about this because I both agree and disagree with Dr. Lennox. I agree with him in that physical laws can never provide a complete explanation of the universe and that laws, of course, do not create anything. In his article, Dr. Lennox goes onto say, "What Hawking appears to have done is to confuse law with agency. His call on us to choose between God and physics is a bit like someone demanding that we choose between aeronautical engineer Sir Frank Whittle and the laws of physics to explain the jet engine." This is where I disagree with him. I do not think that Hawking is confusing law with agency but attributing agency to the laws of physics, replacing a personal God with impersonal laws.

Many years ago in A Brief History of Time (BHT) Hawking stated, "If we discover a complete theory it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason for then we would know the mind of God." When Hawking wrote BHT he seemed to be your average deist who does not believe in a personal God but believes that some transcendent being is necessary for creating the laws of physics and mathematics. In his recent statements, Hawking appears to have changed his theology about God. This is what is creating all the hype about this book. But has he (this is the way Dr. Lennox interprets it) or is he now just being more explicit about who, or what, this "God" is? I believe it is the latter. I do not think that Hawking has changed his theology at all but is being much more explicit than he was in BHT. Now he is specifically stating that a personal God does not exist but that the laws of physics are "God". Look at what he says, "Because there is a law such as gravity..." (emphasis mine). He is not eliminating a need for a first cause (see the Kalam Cosmological Argument) but treating the laws of physics as a brute reality, a transcendent cause that is preexistent. To Hawking, "God" is the laws of physics.

Why is he doing this? Well, again, I believe we can see that in his statement in BHT as well as his recent statements. In BHT he says that discovering a complete theory would allow us to "know the mind of God." In his new book Hawking is proposing a way of looking at the universe where it would be possible for a human to know everything there is to know about the universe (a theory of everything (TOE)). Now we can see what is driving Hawking. If God is personal and transcendent, then the idea that we could come up with a TOE that shows us "the mind of God" is impossible. For example, science would not be able to answer the question of why the universe exists in the first place. However, if "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that are simply a brute force of reality with no basis (a god) then a TOE is possible. Hawking is picking one cosmological and theological model over another so that it would be possible for him to have a complete theory of everything.

Hawking, like all human beings do at one point or another, has fallen prey to the original temptation of satan. How does satan tempt Eve in the Garden of Eden? "'You will not surely die,' the serpent said to the woman. 'For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God...'" (Genesis 3:4-5). In order to know what God knows, Eve disobeyed the one command He gave Adam and her by eating the fruit. In order to know what God knows, Hawking is taking a theological world-view, which holds that "God" is an impersonal set of physical laws that transcend the universe.

There is a very big problem with what Hawking is doing here, however. The laws of physics constantly remind all scientists that effect cannot be greater than the cause, the lesser cannot produce the greater. How can an impersonal set of laws (the lesser) produce personal beings like humans (the greater)? Why is it that humans have personality, compassion, or relationships? Hawking's TOE cannot answer this question because the impersonal cannot beget the personal. To put the problem in another way that philosopher Kenneth Samples has put it, "How is it that the universe can create beings that can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand itself?" If the universe generates us and we can understand the universe but the universe cannot understand us then we are greater than the universe. This is counter to the laws of physics. Impersonal laws (Hawking's "God") can only produce impersonal results such as planets and stars, but they cannot produce personal, compassionate, relational beings like us.

By His Grace,
Taylor

Synthetic Life and the Delicateness of Life

"It shows you how accurate it has to be, one letter out of a million..." ~ Dr. Craig Venter

Many of you heard about the very impressive step that Craig Venter and his team at the J. Craig Venter Institute have made in the quest to create artificial life. It was in the headlines about two months ago. If you did not hear about it, just do a Google search for "A step to artificial life: Manmade DNA powers cell" and a good number of results from many different news agencies will come up. I have wanted to write about this incredible scientific advance for a while but have not been able to find the time until now.

The above statement by Dr. Venter, I think, has great implications for the design debate going on in the scientific community (though he probably did not mean for it to). I will get into that, but first I would like to summarize what he and his team did because it is very impressive work that should be applauded for it has almost limitless potential for possible agricultural, commercial, biomedical, and environmental applications.

First things first: what did Venter and his team do? They truly have created a cell completely powered by synthetic DNA and it was an achievement he and his team have been working on for the past fifteen years. What did they do? For the details one would have to have read the paper that was published in the journal Science, so allow me to break it down for you as best I can.

Let me start with a basic overview. In this research they were working with two different kinds of bacteria, Mycoplasma mycoides (M. mycoides) and Mycoplasma capricolum (M. capricolum). They chose these bacteria because of their relatively small genome size (about one million genetic letters which is about 1,000 genes) and the rapid growth rate of M. capricolum (less time wasted growing bacteria). First, they sequenced the entire genome of M. mycoides. A genome consists of many DNA molecules and the DNA molecules are a collection of genetic letters (abbreviated A, G, C, and T), which hold the genetic information about the organism. Sequencing a genome means determining the order of all the genetic letters, thus creating the "blueprint" for the organism. Second, they synthesized/created a synthetic version of the M. mycoides genome starting with the four basic chemicals of DNA (corresponding to the genetic letters). Third, they implanted the synthetic M. mycoides genome into a M. capricolum bacterium. That genome replaced the host's native genome and took over the operation of the bacterium, essentially changing the M. capricolum bacterium into a (synthetic) M. mycoides bacterium.

Even though I only described three major steps, the process is not simple at all. Allow me elaborate on some of the difficult points.

• Sequencing the entire genome of M. mycoides, even a small genome like this one, is very difficult. They had to take the genome and fragment it (separate it into chunks) and then take each fragment and further fragment them until the whole genome was broken down into its individual letters. (A recent advance in graphene could potentially speed up this process considerably.)
• Synthesizing the genome is even more difficult. They essentially did the above process in reverse. They created small fragments (about 1,000 genetic letters) of the genome, took those fragments and put them together to make larger fragments, then took those larger fragments, and so forth until they had a complete genome. To do this they needed a very good strategy. They looked at the entire sequence (all one million letters), determined the best points to break it up into 1,000-letter fragments, made sure the fragments overlapped slightly (so they could piece them together), and then started creating the fragments and assembling them. To assemble the fragments they used yeast as a kind of "factory" to combine sets of ten 1,000-letter fragments into fragments of 10,000 genetic letters, then combine those 10,000-letter fragments into 100,000-letter fragments, and then, finally, combine those into the one million-letter genome. (Using the yeast as a "factory" is far more complicated than what I just explained because they had to incorporate DNA sequences that caused the yeast to recognize the DNA as its own and they had to do this without altering the M. mycoides genome. They also had to introduce DNA sequences to allow them to do quality control checks after every step to make sure each stage was executed without error.) This is an incredibly ingenious, complicated, and delicate strategy for synthesizing DNA sequences.
• Their strategy for implanting the synthetic genome into a M. capricolum bacterium was equally ingenious and difficult. One of the big hurdles were enzymes known as restriction endonucleases (RE). These are enzymes found in bacteria and archaea that serve as a defense mechanism against the introduction foreign DNA into the cells of the organism (which is exactly what Venter's team was trying to do). These enzymes cleave to specific locations of the DNA helix and cut the DNA at those locations, destroying the foreign DNA. One might then ask, "What about the natural DNA in the host organism? Why is it not destroyed?" Well, natural DNA has a protection system against the RE called the methylase system. This system "methylates" the host's natural DNA by adding a modification enzyme to the RE cleavage sites, which protects it from the RE. In order to get around this, Venter's team developed a strain of M. capricolum with the RE disabled, thus making the M. capricolum susceptible to the (foreign) M. mycoides genome they needed to implant. Then, after implanting it, the synthetic M. mycoides genome produced its own RE that destroyed the host's M. capricolum genome, thus allowing the M. mycoides genome to take over the operation of the M. capricolum bacterium completely. This transformed the M. capricolum bacterium into a synthetic M. mycoides bacterium, which was able to grow into a whole colony of synthetic bacteria.

Even if you got lost in the above explanation, you probably are beginning to realize now how incredibly complicated and difficult this scientific advance was. It took dozens of scientists fifteen years to be able to get this far and there were many setbacks along the way. One setback, the one Venter was commenting on in the above quote, was the result of a mutation (a "typo") that altered one genetic letter out of the million-letter genome. This typo set them back several weeks and completely disabled their synthetic M. capricolum bacterium. The mutation of one genetic letter out of a million caused the organism to be unable to operate and die.

What does mean for the design debate (I mentioned this in the very beginning of this post)? 

1. This advancement shows how complicated and delicate life is and that the work of an incredibly intelligent mind (or a team of incredibly intelligent minds, in this case) is required in order for life to originate. It has shown empirically that to transform life (representing the evolutionary process) or to create life from scratch (representing the origins of life process) requires the intervention of an intelligent agent (if one genetic letter is wrong, as mentioned above, the whole genome is useless). Work like this does not eliminate a need for God; quite the opposite, for it demonstrates how precarious life is and that God is required for life. 
2. This work also demonstrates life's minimum complexity and shows that, even in its lowest possible state, life is extremely complex (far more complex than any naturalistic evolutionary model can account for). 
3. This work creates a completely new category of arguments for design in the universe. The already existing categories of arguments made by scientists that support design are the following: 1) inference to the best explanation, which basically looks at all the models that could account for life and seeks to show that the naturalistic evolutionary models are inferior in their explanation of the facts and 2) argument from design, which basically looks at the apparent design in the universe, notes the similarities to independent human designs, and then argues by analogy that life must be designed. This work introduces a third form of argumentation, which argues that we know now from empirical experience that the making of life requires intelligent ingenuity.

From my Christian point of view this work is very exciting not only because is it just really cool science, not only because it opens up science to a not-too-far-off world of possible applications (bacteria that can create hydrogen for clean fuel, bacteria that can create cheap pharmaceuticals, or even bacteria that can consume oil), but also because it shows in a compelling way, I think, that life requires a Mind--Intelligent Designer--to exist and cannot be the result of random, natural processes. 

By His Grace,

Taylor