Today’s New Reason To Believe

Evolutionary biologists regard “junk” DNA as one of the most potent pieces of evidence for biological evolution. Often identical (or nearly identical) segments of junk DNA occur in a wide range of related organisms. Frequently the identical junk DNA segments reside in corresponding locations in these genomes. For evolutionists, this clearly indicates that these organisms shared a common ancestor. According to this view, these junk DNA segments arose prior to the time when the organisms diverged from their shared evolutionary ancestor. Skeptics ask, “Why would a Creator purposely introduce nonfunctional, junk DNA at the exact location in the genomes of different, but seemingly related, organisms?”

Pseudogenes are one class of junk DNA. Evolutionary biologists consider pseudogenes to be the dead, useless remains of once-functional genes. Presumably, severe mutations destroyed the capacity of the cell’s machinery to “read” and process the information contained in these genes. Still, pseudogenes possess the telltale signatures that allow molecular biologists to identify them as one-time genes.

Formally, molecular biologists recognize pseudogenes in an organism’s genome by using two criteria: (1) sequence similarity to a known gene, and (2) evidence that the pseudogene is nonfunctional. Molecular biologists have traditionally viewed mutations to DNA sequences that appear to be catastrophic as evidence for nonfunctionality.

A recent perspectives article written by Deyou Zheng and Mark Gerstein, two molecular biologists from Yale University, published in Trends in Genetics casts aspersions on the criteria used to identify pseudogenes.¹ In fact, recent discoveries—which motivated this article—raise questions as to whether pseudogenes are really junk at all.

Zheng and Gerstein point out that several research teams have reported that DNA sequences identified as pseudogenes play a critical role in regulating gene expression. The regulatory activity of pseudogenes seems to be related to the sequence similarity they share with their corresponding “functional” gene. They also highlight recent work that indicates that up to 50% of pseudogenes in some genomes appear to be transcriptionally active. (Transcription is the biochemical process that makes use of the information in the DNA sequences of genes.) This new insight runs contrary to the traditional view that regards pseudogenes as transcriptionally silent. Zheng and Gerstein also note that molecular biologists have also uncovered pseudogenes that appear to be under mutational constraints, meaning that they more than likely have function.

The authors conclude their perspectives piece by noting that nonfunctionality is not a legitimate criterion to use to categorize a DNA sequence as a pseudogene!

Pseudogenes appear to be functional, and, as Zheng and Gerstein point out, this class of “junk” DNA seemingly performs a wide range of biochemical functions. It seems premature to declare pseudogenes as the imperfect products of evolutionary processes.

For a detailed discussion of additional evidence that junk DNA is functional, see Who Was Adam?

1. Deyou Zheng and Mark B. Gerstein, “The Ambiguous Boundary between Genes and Pseudogenes: The Dead Rise Up, or Do They?” Trends in Genetics 23 (2007): 219-24.

Scientists have already discovered over 200 planets, and the list continues to grow rapidly. So what prompted the abundance of media coverage regarding a planet discovery announced at the end of April 2007? According to scientists, this was the first potentially habitable planet. For the recently discovered planet, this meant it orbited in the region around its star where liquid water could exist on its surface. A more detailed reading of the discovery announcement and papers revealed that liquid water would also require some type of sustained atmosphere. We have already written two articles about this potentially habitable planet as well as discussed the issue on Creation Update.

Additionally, two recent reports in Science Daily announced evidence of ancient volcanic and water activity on Mars and evidence for a molten core in the planet Mercury. The evidence for volcanic activity mixed with water on Mars relied on observations and measurements made by Spirit, a robotic rover in operation on Mars since January 2004. In contrast, scientists sent radio waves to bounce off Mercury to measure how much the planet wobbles as it orbits the Sun. The technique works on the same principle you can use to detect hard-boiled eggs. (The liquid center of a raw egg causes it to wobble as it spins whereas a hard-boiled egg spins smoothly.) A molten core provides the most straightforward interpretation for the detected wobbling of Mercury. The molten core, also conveniently explains the rather unexpected magnetic field discovered by Mariner 10 over 30 years ago.

My point in highlighting these three discoveries pertains to the fact that often liquid water, molten cores, and magnetic fields are thought to be proprietary to Earth. If other planets possess similar properties, how can we argue for Earth’s designed or unique nature? The answer lies in the creation accounts of the Bible. For instance, Genesis 1:1 describes the beginning of the universe and ends with a featureless, hostile-to-life Earth cloaked in water and darkness. Notice that the presence of water does not contradict the “formless and void” description of Earth. Neither does the author of Genesis comment on any particular miraculous work to bring Earth into existence, in contrast with the multiple miraculous events described as God prepared Earth to support life and then populated it.

It’s reasonable to conclude that the process of planet formation is a natural outworking of the laws of physics God ordained to govern the universe. Further, planets containing water may be far more common than previously thought (water is the universe’s second most abundant molecule) as are planets that briefly exhibit geological activity such as plate tectonics and volcanism. However, the combination and durability of Earth’s water cycle, plate tectonics, and magnetic field generation 4.5 billion years after its formation strongly argues for supernatural intervention. The sustained activity of all three characteristics constitutes a key distinction between the Earth, which God formed to be inhabited, and the “formless and void” planets scientists will continue to find.

What is Theistic Evolution?

Theistic evolution (sometimes abbreviated TE) takes many forms but its general theme is that God used natural evolutionary processes to bring about his desired results concerning life on planet Earth, culminating in the appearance of human beings. Advocates of this position typically propose that God intervened directly (de novo, anew) at the beginning of the creative process (origin of the universe) but afterward worked solely through natural mechanisms to give rise to life and ultimately to humanity. Because the created order possesses built-in self-organization and transformational qualities, no further supernatural intervention was necessary as it moved through the evolutionary process.

Many who hold this position interpret the early chapters of Genesis as figurative, archetypal, or mythological in nature. Theistic evolution is also sometimes called “evolutionary creationism,” “fully gifted creation,” and “BioLogos.”

What difficulties are associated with Theistic Evolution?

While a number of prominent Christian scholars affirm theistic evolution, other evangelical scholars have identified a variety of scientific, theological, and biblical objections with the viewpoint. Three such criticisms will be outlined briefly:

1. Some scientists argue that the challenges for a naturalistic explanation of the origin of life, like the sudden emergence of complex life-forms (such as at the Cambrian explosion), also apply to theistic evolution. Therefore, TE may not explain the discontinuities in the natural record in an adequate and persuasive manner.
2. Some theologians suggest that theistic evolution’s view of God (a being who does not directly intervene in the universe after creation) comes closer to deism than to biblical theism (a God who not only creates, but continually intervenes and sustains). In other words, some think TE focuses upon God’s immanence in creation at the expense of his transcendent creative intervention, whereas biblical theism stresses the need to properly balance both of these critical divine attributes.
3. Not only does Scripture seem to indicate that God has intervened directly in the creative process to create the first member of each kind of species (rejecting all such macroevolution), but the biblical text also seems to present God as creating Adam and Eve in a direct, special, and personal way (thus as authentic historical persons). Thus most evangelical textual scholars view the early chapters of Genesis as reflecting a genuine historical narrative.

For a presentation and defense of theistic evolution, see Howard J. Van Till, “The Fully Gifted Creation (‘Theistic Evolution’),” in J. P. Moreland and John Mark Reynolds, gen. ed. Three Views on Creation and Evolution (Zondervan, 1999) and Francis S. Collins TheLanguage of God (Free Press, 2006).