Today’s New Reason To Believe

Previously Posted on December 14th, 2007 by David H. Rogstad, Ph.D.

Through my career as a scientist, not only has the science itself provided validation for the Christian faith, but also life’s “little” lessons while doing science.

Not long after the Galileo spacecraft began its long voyage to Jupiter in 1989, the controllers determined it would be an opportune time to test its large umbrella-like antenna. When they tried to open it up, several of the spokes refused to expand, leaving the antenna about as effective as an umbrella in a hurricane. Following numerous attempts to break it free, NASA commissioned a “tiger team” at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) to investigate all possible ways in which the mission could be recovered. If nothing was done, the data transmission rate would be limited to about 10 bits per second at Jupiter, far too slow to accomplish most of the mission goals.

The final recommendations of that team included development of antenna arraying, where several antennas on the ground could simultaneously track the Galileo spacecraft and coherently add the signals together to obtain increased signal-gathering power. This development became the task of my group at JPL, a project that required all of the time of some 25 engineers, programmers, and scientists for about three years to complete. It challenged my team-building skills under conditions that were very stressful due to the time constraint of Galileo’s encounter with Jupiter.

In the gospels, Jesus says more than once that if you want to be great, you must become a servant. I really wanted my group to be successful in performing the arraying development, so I felt compelled to make every effort to practice this principle. Success requires the team players to “jump in” and do what it takes to get the job done. The team leader leads best by being an example. He or she should have no special privileges.

To make a long story short, I had the opportunity to fully demonstrate my willingness to be a servant leader. If there was a “dirty” job to be done, I chose to be the first to do it, even when it meant cleaning up a toilet spill. If something needed to be bought, on occasion I would spend my own money to get it in order to save time. I discovered that others will follow the example of a willing leader and won’t complain when the going gets difficult. The example of other leaders in my life helped me to see that the leader’s primary responsibility is to ensure that the team has the resources and help it needs to accomplish the task. Then success comes naturally.

There is no question in my mind that God blessed our effort and gave us the success we desired. I remember one time when we met a particular milestone with flying colors, that one of my engineers remarked that “we were so successful, there must be a God in heaven looking out for us.” This comment came from a person having no particular belief in God.

If you’ve kept abreast of the Galileo mission, you’ll know our efforts were wildly successful. Our antenna-arraying capability, together with three other modifications to the spacecraft software and other ground systems, led to an improvement of the communications system of up to a factor of 100 in data rate. All of the major goals of the mission were accomplished in the following years. And my team had the privilege of receiving special commendation for our part in this achievement. We were so successful with antenna arraying that we were given the task of expanding this capability for use in all missions.

This personal experience is no earthshaking argument for the Christian faith, but it does substantiate a biblical principle on healthy human interaction and how it promotes human flourishing.

Previously Posted on May 22nd, 2008 by Fazale ‘Fuz’ Rana, Ph.D.

A sampling of new research uncovers more function for junk DNA, undermines one of the best arguments for biological evolution

My wife enjoys shopping at large club stores. I, however, don’t care for them much. Still, from time to time I’ll join Amy on her shopping excursions, usually enticed by the prospects of free food samples. Nothing’s better than walking up and down store aisles greedily ingesting morsels of tasty food on a late Saturday morning, right before lunch.

Club stores offer free bites of food to let the customers know about all the wonderful products that are available. I’m going to follow suit in this article by offering up a sampling of recent discoveries that ascribe function to junk DNA with the hope that you will have an idea of the remarkable advances happening in molecular biology—advances that are eroding support for one of evolution’s best arguments.

Junk DNA and the Case for Biological Evolution
Evolutionary biologists consider the existence of junk DNA as one of the most potent pieces of evidence for biological evolution. According to this view, junk DNA results when biochemical processes and chemical and physical events transform a functional DNA segment into a useless molecular artifact. Such pieces of DNA remain part of an organism’s genome solely because of its attachment to functional DNA. In this way, junk DNA persists from generation to generation.

Evolutionists also highlight the fact that in many instances identical (or nearly identical) segments of junk DNA appear in a wide range of related organisms. Frequently, the identical junk DNA segments reside in corresponding locations in these genomes. Evolutionists take this to indicate that these organisms shared a common ancestor, suggesting that the junk DNA segment arose prior to the time that the organisms diverged from their shared evolutionary ancestor.

The challenge represented by junk DNA takes on a similar logical form to the problem of evil:

• God is all-good.
• God is all-powerful.
• God is all-knowing.
• Junk DNA exists.

For skeptics and atheists, the last statement is incompatible with the first three. Evolutionists ask, “Why would a Creator purposely introduce nonfunctional, junk DNA at the exact location in the genomes of different, but seemingly related, organisms?”

Responding to the Junk DNA Challenge
Proponents of intelligent design and creationism respond to this valid objection by highlighting the many recent findings that attribute function to junk DNA. Here is a sample of findings that have been reported during the last few months—just to give you a taste.

SINE DNA

This class of junk DNA belongs to a category of sequences known as transposable elements—pieces of DNA that jump around the genome, or transpose. In the process of moving around the genome, some transposable elements make additional copies of themselves, and therefore increase in number when they transpose. SINES belong to a subclass of transposable elements, called retrotransposons. Molecular biologists believe that these DNA elements duplicate and move around the genome through an RNA intermediate and the activity of reverse transcriptase.

SINES range in size from 100 to 300 base pairs (genetic letters). In primates, the most common SINES are the so-called Alu sequences. In fact, there are about 1.1 million Alu copies in the human genome (roughly 12% of the human genome). Alu sequences contain a segment that the cell’s machinery can use to produce an RNA message. In this way, SINES can duplicate and move around the genome as reverse transcriptase back-converts SINE RNA into DNA.

Previous work has identified a functional role for SINE DNA in gene regulation and stress response. (For discussions about SINE DNA function see my books Who Was Adam? and The Cell’s Design.)

New work has now uncovered a role for a newly discovered subclass of SINE DNA in regulating gene expression during brain development in mammals.

Introns

This class of junk DNA consists of DNA sequences that interrupt the coding region of a gene. The DNA sequences that make up genes in eukaryotes consist of stretches of nucleotides that specify the amino acid sequence of a protein (called exons) interrupted by nucleotide sequences that don’t code for anything (called introns). After the gene is copied into a messenger RNA molecule, the intron sequences are excised and the exons spliced together by a protein-RNA complex known as a spliceosome. Because introns interrupt coding sequences of DNA and are excised by the cell’s machinery, many scientists view these elements as junk DNA.

A recent study, however, indicates that introns do serve a function. It appears that some of these sequences help direct messenger RNA to specific locations in the cell.

Once assembled and processed, messenger RNA migrates from the nucleus of the cell into the cytoplasm. At ribosomes, messenger RNA directs the synthesis of proteins. Once produced, the proteins diffuse away from the ribosomes and begin their work for the cell.

Up until now biochemists thought that before exiting the nucleus, where the splicing and other processing reactions take place, all the introns were removed from the RNA message. But new work indicates this is not the case. Researchers discovered a messenger RNA molecule in the cytoplasm of neurons with an intronic sequence.

This messenger RNA molecule harbors a copy of the information needed to produce a protein component of a channel complex that permits the flux of calcium ions across the membranes of the dendrites. This process is essential for nerve transmission. It appears as if this intron helps direct the messenger RNA to the appropriate location in the dendrites where it then directs the production of the proteins that will eventually form the calcium ion channel.

This newly discovered regulatory mechanism may well be a general strategy that helps dictate gene expression in neurons and maybe other cell types as well.

These two advances give a sampling of flavors for the numerous discoveries that have been published in the last few months assigning function to so-called junk DNA. I could continue, but I don’t want to overdo it. After all, consuming too many samples can ruin Saturday’s lunch out.

Next week, I’ll resume the sampling by describing another newly recognized function for a class of junk DNA known as pseudogenes. I hope you’re hungry for more.

Previously Posted July 2nd, 2008 by Jeff Zweerink

I travel frequently for work and pleasure. Whether loading up the minivan for a vacation or packing bags to fly to a speaking event, I work hard to avoid carrying unnecessary baggage. I also apply this principle to my apologetics work at Reasons To Believe.

I officially debuted on RTB’s weekly webcast, Creation Update, on August 5th, 2005. I discussed the possibility of liquid water on Mars. In particular, radioisotope measurements on a set of Martian meteorites demonstrated that the temperature of the rock out of which the meteorites formed never exceeded 0^oC (32sup>oF) over the last four billion years.

I looked at such evidence as confirmation that Earth was designed as the only planet that ever sustained large liquid water oceans. After all, life depends on liquid water. Thus, if no other planet ever had oceans, no other planet would have ever supported life.

Had I maintained an apologetic argument that Earth is designed as the only planet that contained liquid water oceans, a number of discoveries over the past couple of years would have challenged my position. At least two different lines of evidence now indicate that Mars sustained large bodies of liquid water on its surface sometime in the past. Furthermore, Jupiter’s moon Europa contains a large sub-surface liquid ocean under its outer ice crust.

However, as I reread various creation passages, I realized that the Bible seems to imply that Earth is not the only planet with water oceans. Consider the first two verses of Genesis:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. And the earth was formless and void, and darkness was over the surface of the deep; and the Spirit of God was moving over the surface of the waters. (NASB) [emphasis added]

Before any explicit intervention by God in Earth’s formation, the author of Genesis describes it as covered with a liquid water ocean. The rest of Genesis 1 describes some of the miraculous work God performs to transform Earth from a structureless, dark, and empty body into a planet with diverse habitats teeming with life. It is rational to conclude that strictly natural processes can produce planets that contain substantial liquid water. In fact, that may be the starting condition of most Earth-sized planets.

I am not saying that Earth does not exhibit design. I am simply noting that one of my original ideas of how that design would be displayed was incorrect. Careful reading of Scripture helped me formulate a more accurate picture of how scientists would find Earth designed to support life. For example, further research into the water environment of Mars recently demonstrated that the salt content was far too high to permit life to originate or even exist on Mars. In other words, large liquid water oceans are not sufficient for life. The oceans must exhibit additional fine-tuning. Fuz will discuss this result further in tomorrow’s TNRTB.

By carefully studying the words of the Bible and the record of nature, I was able to put away an unnecessary piece of apologetics baggage. Perhaps it is helpful to recall past examples of unneeded arguments that hindered the church’s witness:

1. The Bible says that the sun revolves around the Earth.
2. The Bible says that Earth is at the center of the universe.
3. The Bible says that the characteristics of species never change.
4. The Bible says that the Earth and the universe must be no more than 10,000 years old.

An apologist builds a body of evidence to support his position. However, any position is much easier to support if it carries no unnecessary weight.