Today’s New Reason To Believe

David H. Rogstad, Ph.D.

Scientific discoveries and their theological implications always fascinate me, but sometimes it’s the Scripture-validating everyday human experiences that confirm the Bible’s divine origin.

A discovery I’ve made about myself over the years is the degree to which I will hang on to anything that gives me advantage, whether money, position, or credit. Letting go of any advantage goes strongly against the grain, even though I desire to live in harmony with biblical principles.

This tendency was profoundly challenged when I was leading the Hypercube Project in its early phases at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL). The goal of this project was to develop a supercomputer made up of hundreds of desktop-sized computers all working together in parallel. I played a significant role in initiating JPL’s contribution to this joint cooperation between JPL and the Caltech campus. Also, to insure success, I gave up leadership in other important projects to devote time to raising funds at various government and private agencies. I also led the group that was developing new hardware and software systems for the next-generation machine.

In many ways I felt like I was “king of the mountain” for a very exciting research effort that also got the attention of the (then) director of JPL, Ret. General Lew Allen. He would come over to our workplace carrying a card in his wallet that listed the performance characteristics we had promised to achieve, in order to check up on progress. However, as the project grew, it became clear to JPL leadership (and me) that we needed a full-time experienced administrator to run things. In time such a person was hired, but for me to let go of my responsibilities was like pulling teeth. Needless to say, there was a lot of tension in our relationship.

At this same time I was being challenged to give more of my finances to various causes. Jesus says in Acts 20:35 that there is greater joy in giving than receiving. I certainly knew of the blessing of receiving. Was I interested in discovering the greater joy of not just giving, but giving generously?

My first response after deciding to accept the challenge was to commit to giving larger tips to restaurant food servers. No big deal there. A bit more challenging was the decision to give more generously to others in need and to various ministries. However, the real rub came when I felt I was being challenged to let go of my position at work. I struggled for some time with this suggestion, but finally gave in and committed to trust God with my future and any credit I earned.

The outcome of this adventure resulted in a freedom from fear and jealousy and the need to receive credit for any contribution I make. Even though I still fall far short of the example I see in many others, I sense a growing desire to give even more, both financially and in service. There is also a new excitement in working on applying other principles of life given in Scripture. I can genuinely testify that, far beyond the degree to which I have given, I have tasted of the joy that Jesus spoke of.

Such validations of biblical ideas from common experiences—even though anecdotal—demonstrate Christianity’s “livability,” an important test for worldviews.

Posted by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

The 1% Myth

In 1891 Harley Procter commissioned a laboratory to conduct a chemical analysis that would have far-reaching impact. The laboratory determined that only 0.56% of the measured ingredients in a bar of soap failed to fit into the category of “pure soap.” This result led to one of the best-known advertising slogans of all time: Ivory Soap™ “99 44/100% Pure.”

In 1975 Mary-Claire King performed an analysis that also had far-reaching impact. She determined that several human and chimpanzee proteins display a 99% agreement in amino acid sequence. King’s work showed that humans and chimpanzees possess a closer genetic relatedness than anyone at that time had thought. This result has led to one of the best-known cultural icons of our time: “Humans are 99% chimpanzee.”

For many, this genetic similarity represents one of the most compelling arguments for humanity’s evolutionary origin. Presumably, the 99% sequence overlap observed for proteins and DNA indicates that humans and chimpanzees arose from a common ancestor some time in the relatively recent past. Accordingly, the small genetic differences arose after the human and chimpanzee lineages split as a consequence of mutational changes to each species’ genetic material.

(By the way, a high degree of genetic similarity between humans and chimpanzees does not controvert a biblical view of human origins. In fact, Scripture seems to imply that biological similarity exists between humans and other animals, including the Great Apes. (See a recent article I wrote in Connections for a full explanation.)

Even though many evolutionary biologists consider the 99% genetic similarity between humans and chimps as a profound truth, it turns out to be largely useless information. The genetic similarity between humans and chimps doesn’t explain why there is such a fundamental biological and behavioral difference between us and these creatures.

Anthropologist Jonathan Marks addresses this point in his book, What It Means To Be 98% Chimpanzee. Marks maintains that comparisons based on the percent similarity (or difference) of DNA sequences is largely meaningless. As a case in point, he highlights the fact that humans and daffodils possess a 35% genetic similarity. According to Marks,

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.

A recent news focus piece written by John Cohen for Science makes the same point as Marks. The 99% genetic similarity provides limited biological insight, at best. University of California, San Diego zoologist Pascal Gagneux states in the article that

Now it’s totally clear that it’s (the 99% genetic similarity) more a hindrance for understanding than a help.

It turns out that there are numerous features of the human and chimpanzee genomes that differ significantly. And these genetic differences have the potential to account for the biological and cognitive disparities between our species and chimpanzees.

Cohen identifies several key differences between human and chimp genomes that went unnoticed until recently because of the fixation on the 1% genetic difference. For example:

1. The true genetic similarity between humans and chimps is not 99% (which is based on substitution mutations). Instead it’s about 90% when indels (insertions and deletions in the DNA sequences) are considered.
2. Researchers have also discovered that the gene copy number differs for human and chimp genomes. In fact, preliminary data suggests that gene copy number may differ by 6.4% between the two genomes.

Both indels and gene copy number are biologically significant, affecting gene expression.

Thus, the research reveals that humans and chimpanzees are not as genetically similar as popular myth would have us believe. If a 99% genetic similarity implies a close evolutionary relationship, what does a 90% similarity mean?

Nobody would have bought Ivory Soap if it was only 90% pure. Nobody should buy that humans are 99% chimpanzee.

Next week I will discuss another important genetic difference between humans and chimpanzees.

For a detailed discussion of the genetic similarities and differences between humans and chimpanzees and what it means for a human evolutionary and for RTB’s creation model see Who Was Adam?

Jeff Zweerink, Ph.D.

Everyone knows that humans die without adequate oxygen and many know that oxygen comprises about 20% of Earth’s atmosphere. As a kid, I always wondered why Earth’s atmosphere contained only that small fraction, if oxygen was so important to our survival. After taking a few chemistry classes, I realized how violently oxygen reacts and that too much atmospheric oxygen would be bad for Earth’s habitability.

Until the Cambrian explosion, living organisms (particularly photosynthesizing cyanobacteria) generated virtually all the oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere. However, while evidence points to abundant cyanobacteria activity at least 2.7 billion years ago (and maybe back to 3.5 billion years), Earth’s atmosphere was essentially devoid of oxygen until 2.4-2.5 billion years ago (although geological evidence indicates sporadic episodes of atmospheric oxygen somewhat earlier). Scientists have worked to understand what might have caused this lag between the advent of abundant oxygen-producing organisms and a sustained presence of atmospheric oxygen.

A recent article in Nature highlights one potential solution. Anyone who has tried to fill a bucket with water when the bucket has a hole understands the basic idea. Given a large enough hole, all the water put into the bucket drains before any can accumulate. However, reduce the size of the hole and the bucket now starts to fill up.

The authors propose that a spurt of continental crust formation filled the “hole” draining all the oxygen from Earth’s atmosphere. As the amount of continental crust increased the number of undersea volcanoes decreased, as more volcanoes formed on land. Land-based volcanoes emit different gases than submarine volcanoes. In particular, the gases are less reactive with oxygen, meaning that a non-negligible amount of the cyanobacteria-produced oxygen makes it into the atmosphere. Once the atmospheric oxygen crosses a threshold, ozone forms, which shields the oxygen from destruction by the sun’s ultraviolet radiation. This ozone shield essentially ensures a stable abundance of oxygen in Earth’s atmosphere.

Additionally, shortly after the establishment of a stable abundance of oxygen in the atmosphere, more-complex organisms that rely on oxygen are introduced into Earth’s biosphere. RTB’s creation model understands the timing of such events as evidence of a supernatural Creator’s preparation of Earth for humanity.