Friday, July 20, 2012
Junk DNA
Recently a commentator on another blog (Choice in Dying – www.choiceindying.com) cited the example of the vitamin C pseudogene and challenged us to explain why "an intelligent designer would give us apes a perfectly good gene for making vitamin C, but then borked it at a single locus so it's inactive." This, of course, is one of the arguments in favor of evolution, the presence of "junk DNA", DNA that has no apparent function. Dr. Collins uses this evidence as well in his argument for theistic evolution.
As we noted earlier in our review of Dr. Collins' book, The Language of God, the argument from junk DNA is similar to the older argument from vestigial organs. Presumably a wise and all-powerful Creator would not have created us with useless organs and DNA, whereas evolution seeming offers us a plausible explanation for their existence. Presumably they were functioning organs in some ancestral species. Arguments of this sort, however, overlook an important biblical detail: the Bible makes it clear that nature, as it exists now, is not the way it was originally created. "For the creation was subjected to futility . . ." (Rom. 8:20; NKJV). The fact of the fall, combined with possible climate change in conjunction with the flood, would mean that a certain amount of devolution has likely taken place. We were originally created to live, but now we die. Something obviously had to have happened to change our biochemistry. Hence we should not be surprised to find damaged chromosomes and apparently useless DNA in our cells. That is very far from proving macroevolution, which would require a progression from simpler to more complex forms of life, with all the genetic changes that would require, including the appearance of entirely new genetic material.
In the Christian theistic worldview, nature is sort of like the ruins of an ancient Greek temple. The evolutionist looks at the ruins and says, "This could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent being. What architect would design a temple with the columns broken off and fallen down"? But the Christian looks at exactly the same ruins and asks, "How did they get there in the first place? There is obvious evidence of design"! The obvious answer, of course, is that the architect did not design the temple with the columns broken off and fallen down. Something else happened, after the temple was built, to bring it to its present ruined condition. And that, of course, is exactly what the Bible says happened to nature.
At the end of his book Dr. Collins resumes the story of his conversion and then concludes with moving appeals to both believers and scientists to end their internecine war.
Dr. Collins is to be applauded for trying to advance science while preserving spiritual values. He comes across as a very reasonable person, as well as compassionate, a person who cares deeply about both science and his faith, anxious to do justice to all aspects of life. And yet, as Christians, we cannot help but feel that he conceded too much to Darwin and did not give sufficient weight to Scripture. His book is, nevertheless, a valuable contribution to the discussion and well worth reading.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The fact of the fall, combined with possible climate change in conjunction with the flood, would mean that a certain amount of devolution has likely taken place.
ReplyDeleteHow does "devolution" work?
Think about it.
How can you test for it or predict it?
How do you, y'know, use it.
There's this scientist from your church and he's still sitting in his lab. He's surrounded by pots of money. His test tubes are gathering dust. He'd like to do some work.
Suddenly, the word "devolution" echoes down the corridors. Could this be it? Could this be the chance that he's been waiting for?
Wonderful. He grabs pen and paper and breathless awaits for details.
You can test and make predictions with evolution. Can you do the same with "devolution"?
We were originally created to live, but now we die. Something obviously had to have happened to change our biochemistry.
Ok, what? What happened and what are it's effects?
Hence we should not be surprised to find damaged chromosomes and apparently useless DNA in our cells.
So...if a damaged chromosome exists, is it always the result of "devolution" or are there sometimes other reasons? How do you tell the two apart?
What about extra chromosomes?
What about other species like birds or insects?
How do you falsify "devolution"?
(Hint: Falsification is very important in science. If you can't falsify a theory then...it's not a theory at all.)
In the Christian theistic worldview...
Ah, the gift that keeps on giving...
"In the Batman worldview, nature is sort of like the ruins of an ancient Gotham temple. The evolutionist looks at the ruins and says, "This could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent being. What architect would design a temple with the columns broken off and fallen down"? But a Nananananananana-BATMANist looks at exactly the same ruins and asks, "How did they get there in the first place? There is obvious evidence of design"! The obvious answer, of course, is that the architect did not design the temple with the columns broken off and fallen down. Something else happened, after the temple was built, to bring it to its present ruined condition. And that, of course, is exactly what DC Comic and the Batman Franchise says happened to nature.
(...)as Nananananananana-BATMANists, we cannot help but feel that he conceded too much to Darwin and did not give sufficient weight to DC Comics."
"In the Bast worldview, nature is sort of like the ruins of an ancient Thebian temple. The evolutionist looks at the ruins and says, "This could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent being. What architect would design a temple with the columns broken off and fallen down"? But a worshipper of Bast looks at exactly the same ruins and asks, "How did they get there in the first place? There is obvious evidence of design"! The obvious answer, of course, is that the architect did not design the temple with the columns broken off and fallen down. Something else happened, after the temple was built, to bring it to its present ruined condition. And that, of course, is exactly what the Book of Life and the temple priests says happened to nature.
(...)as worshippers of Bast, we cannot help but feel that he conceded too much to Darwin and did not give sufficient weight to The Book of Life."
In the Christian theistic worldview, nature is sort of like the ruins of an ancient Greek temple.
ReplyDeleteThis is a bad analogy.
You see, we know that temples are built by people.
Ancient Greek temples were built by...ancient Greek people.
So when you compare nature to a temple, there's an inbuilt assumption of it being built. You've assumed the conclusion you are trying to prove. The analogy does not work.
The evolutionist looks at the ruins and...
No. The "evolutionist" does no such thing.
The word you are looking for is..scientist.
The scientist looks at the ruins and says, "This could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent being.
Nope, no scientist would say that. All science is tentative.
Nor would a scientist say "This could not possibly have been designed by aliens."
Anything is possible. It's just that there's this little thing called the burden of proof.
Did aliens build your friend's pacemaker? Well,um, maybe.
(..awkward silence...)
However, it's much more likely that there's a better, more boring explanation. Right?
"What architect would design a temple with the columns broken off and fallen down"?
Well, maybe the architect was commissioned to built a ruined temple by a rich eccentric? He didn't want a functioning temple. He wanted a "YE OLDE QUAINTE RUIN OF A GREEK TEMPLE" complete with rich green ivy covering it all making an ideal picnic spot.
(And yes, this did and does happen.
Look up Frederick the Great and his Summer Palace in Prussia. Check out the fake ruins.)
But the Christian looks at exactly the same ruins and asks, "How did they get there in the first place?
Good question.
There is obvious evidence of design"!
Really bad answer.
There's nothing "obvious" about it. If it's so obvious then roll up your sleeves and do some work and demonstrate that it is so.
Don't just gawp like a simpleton and go "Ooooh, pretty."
Do some work.
You could, for example, compare this particular ruin with pictures of other known ruins. How about inscriptions? What materials were used? What design are the columns? Are they Pre, Middle, or Post Hellenic? Where is the ruin located? In Greece or some island or somewhere totally unexpected?
A scientist can look at objects and tell if they are man-made or not. They can even tell when they were made and how they were made.
However, a scientist (not even your pet scientist) cannot tell you if the temple was made by vampires, pixies or your [Brand Name].
Think about it.
What would a temple built by vampires look like?
Devolution? It's pretty simple. A mutation damages a gene. And since the majority of mutations are not beneficial, over time you will get "junk DNA." In that sense devolution is far more likely to occur than evolution. It is far easier to damage an existing gene than it is to create a new one.
ReplyDeleteDevolution? It's pretty simple.
ReplyDeleteGreat. Then this should be a snap.
A mutation damages a gene. And since the majority of mutations are not beneficial, over time you will get "junk DNA."
So how do you test for that? How do you falsify it?
What predictions can you make? How is it useful?
The scientist from your church is still in the lab. Waiting and hoping.
Less talky-talky and more worky-worky.
The silence is deafening....
DeleteHow do we test for this? You take a tissue sample, and if the results come back positive, you have cancer (or perhaps a genetic disease of some sort).
DeleteMy point here is a philosophical one, to counter the argument that an intelligent Designer would not create us with vestigial organs and junk DNA. In the biblical conception of things, however, nature as it exists today is not the way it was created. We live in a dysfunctional world. It therefore stands to reason that we would have DNA which once served a useful purpose but no longer does.
Incidentally, to stray from the subject a bit, I understand that there is now a scientific consensus that the K-T extinction event was caused, at least in part, by the asteroid impact in the Yucatan Peninsula, and that there is a possibility (although this part is still under debate) that multiple impact events, including an even larger asteroid that struck off the shore of India (the Shiva crater). Immanuel Velikovsky should feel vindicated!
In the Christian theistic worldview, nature is sort of like the ruins of an ancient Greek temple. The evolutionist looks at the ruins and says, "This could not possibly have been designed by an intelligent being.
ReplyDeleteI doubt that many evolutionists look at it that way. I think you are telling yourself a story, so as to delude yourself.
And yet, as Christians, we cannot help but feel that he conceded too much to Darwin and did not give sufficient weight to Scripture.
This talk of "conceding to Darwin" reveals a serious lack of understanding of science. I doubt that Collins is conceding anything to Darwin. To do so would be unscientific. In science, we value evidence, not personality cults.
I'll put it to you that Collins sees himself as directly examining the handwork of God as he does his science. As the songwriter puts it, Humans wrote the Bible; God wrote the rocks.
They may not put it quite that way, but it is, in substance, the standard argument from vestigial organs ("Why would an Intelligent Being create us with a useless organ?"). Or to use the slightly different form of the argument advanced by Stephen Jay Gould, why would a loving God create an insect like the ichneumonid wasp? The biblical answer is that God did not create the world that way. These are deformities of nature that resulted from our rebellion against God.
ReplyDeleteI am sure that you are absolutely right about how Collins sees himself, and I commend him for it.