I love a good hiking story, and like all scientists I love the prospect of discovering something new. Really new. A recent “behind the paper” article posted on Ecology and Evolution (an online community from Nature Research) unpacks a tale with both elements. In spring of 2016, on a hike through Nova Scotia, Yana Eglit stopped to collect a soil sample that harbored not just one but two rare organisms from a seldom-encountered group of predatory protists (single-celled eukaryotes) known as hemimastigotes.¹ Discovery and analyses of these tiny creatures has been instructive and it bears directly on evolution/creation discussions.

Searching for Common Ground

As part of my work for RTB, I occasionally venture onto science-faith and apologetics online discussion sites. One site, called Peaceful Science, seeks to bring scientists from all faith persuasions into discussions about various origins models, including RTB’s progressive (old-earth) creationism model and evolutionary mainstream models. Needless to say, we don’t interpret some scientific data the same way, especially when it concerns origins. Discussions can be challenging!

One complicating factor is that it is often difficult to understand someone’s model from their vantage point when it seems incongruent with one’s own worldview model. Consider evolution, which says all life, extinct and extant, has developed through neutral and adaptive mutations and eons of common descent (with or without God’s preprogramming or tweaking the system along the way). And then consider the progressive creation model, which says God created distinct “kinds”—introducing them, in due course, over long epochs of creation. Now, add 280 years of observations by scientists and naturalists who have classified organisms into various taxa according to the Linnaeus system of naming and classification (i.e., taxonomy). How does one begin to talk coherently across these two origin models? Where do we find grounds for clear communication?

What Is a “Kind”?

Introduced by Swedish scientist Carl Linnaeus in 1735, scientists still use the Linnaeus system of classification but they have introduced several additional categories or taxa (e.g., subphyla, supra kingdoms, suborders, etc.). Many organisms undergo frequent reclassification as new data emerges. Since Linnaeus’s system is based on observed morphologies, behaviors, and ecological space, classifications entail subjective elements according to observers and which characteristics they prioritize. Naturalists often disagree about variants and specific species identifications. So, classification of organisms is a bit arbitrary as to when something falls within one taxon or a closely related taxon.

In my engagements with evolutionary proponents on Peaceful Science, some have insisted that I define created kinds and first principles in order to support a progressive (old-earth) creationist model for life on Earth. I’ve responded that created kinds cannot be defined a priori but must be determined through observations and comparisons. And due to the somewhat arbitrary nature of various taxa, “kinds” may not be definable across taxa. For example, some created “kinds” might fall at the level of phyla and others at the level of class. Perhaps other “kinds” would even fall at the level of species or subspecies (e.g., Homo sapiens sapiens).

Within an evolutionary model, the modern synthesis of Darwinian evolution adds consideration of genetics (inheritance of DNA), population modeling, and now comparative genomics to the determination of descent with modification. Distinctions arising from these considerations have resulted in additional non-Linnaean classifications. Clade (from Ancient Greek, meaning “branch”) is one such classification that describes distinct groups that share common ancestry. Clade may provide a current accepted designation that could come close to a created kind—a realization that materialized in my online discussions with evolutionary proponents.

My assertions that kinds must be determined observationally (through extensive comparative genomics and, when possible, through experimental validation) have been criticized for lack of predictive value. Critics insist that evolutionary theory predicts nested hierarchies (levels of relatedness) and that phylogenomic analyses show just such relationships among various organisms. According to evo-devo predictions, each new organism should fit into the scheme that roughly—depending on which organisms and which genes or gene sets are being compared—depicts the historical relatedness of Earth’s organisms. And they claim that phylogenomic analyses have proven that evolution is correct (and therefore all YEC and OEC claims are falsified) and that all life fits this scheme (of nested hierarchies) and therefore shares common ancestry and descent.

I remain highly skeptical that any molecular data supports evolutionary speculations that presumably account for development of novelties and ever-increasing complexities. I also think evolutionary speculations and just-so stories fall short of realistically accounting for extreme orchestration of highly complex, finely tuned biological systems—whether intracellular, intra-organismal, or ecological in nature.

And regarding our current topic, I’m also skeptical that phylogenomic analyses actually show that all life is related by common descent. What the data indicates is that phylogenomics can show a variety of possible but uncertain inferred relationships.² But as far as nested hierarchies go, there’s a bit of a challenge because a progressive creation model would also expect nested hierarchies within clades or created kinds. However, a progressive creation model would also predict that there are independent hierarchies (unrelated organisms), each stemming from an organism created by fiat and filled out through secondary cause-and-effect reproduction. These original created organisms would not be static but dynamic, able to adapt to changing environments and diversify over long epochs of time and would entail many familiar mechanisms such as epigenetic changes and gene flow.

A Prediction That Could Distinguish Origins Models

A dogma within molecular biology and genetics holds that descent with modification is traceable at the genetic level. Genetic sequences can be changed through progressive accrual of neutral and beneficial mutations and even, perhaps, of detrimental mutations that are not severely damaging. Inheritance, gene flow, and sexual recombination allow for greater changes in genetic sequences, as do gene duplications, rearrangements, and lateral or horizontal gene transfer (HGT) from other organisms (albeit arguably HGT is extremely rare in higher organisms). These types of genetic changes can be tricky to account for in phylogenomic analyses. And even in progressive creation models, these changes within clades would occur as frequently as they would in evolutionary models. Further complications to data interpretation would occur when, for providential reasons, common (shared) archetypes (at molecular levels) occur in various created kinds. These processes and design features could present an insurmountable hurdle for phylogenomic analyses. Computational biologists would need to maintain flexibility in allowing the previous types of genetic changes into analyses without creating false signals of descent arising from common molecular archetypes occurring across independent hierarchies.

So a question arises: Is there a prediction that stems from a progressive creation model’s assertion of independent hierarchies (even if containing nested hierarchies within)? One might imagine that as scientists continue to sequence more and more environmental samples or newly discovered organisms, some organisms will emerge that do not fit nested hierarchies already in place. Newly discovered (and sequenced) organisms should fit into the ever-bushier plethora of nested hierarchies depicting evolution’s common descent from the last universal common ancestor in the evolutionary model. In contrast, if true, progressive creationism would predict that independent hierarchies may be discovered.

Hemimastigotes Fit This Predictive Aspect of Progressive Creationism

Not possible in previous encounters with hemimastigotes, Eglit and her colleagues were able to isolate single cells and sequence transcriptomes (RNA sequences) from the two captured hemimastigotes: Hemimastiix and Spironema.³ Previous observations had placed hemimastigotes in a phylum of eukaryotes designated as Hemimastigophora.⁴ The Hemimastigophora were thought to be similar to Euglenophyta (euglenids) or perhaps alveolates or Rhizaria (Sar), apusomonads or ancyromonads (Amorphea+) based on shared morphological features.⁵

After isolating and characterizing the newly collected hemimastigotes but prior to sequencing their intracellular RNAs (transcriptomes), Eglit and colleagues made some bets on which supergroup their newly sequenced organisms would fall into. Following extensive bioinformatic clean-up, phylogenomic trees comparing the new sequences to existing eukaryotic sequences revealed that no one won the bet.⁶ Hemimastigotes did not fall within any previously characterized major group of eukaryotes. They represented a supergroup, now designated as a new supra-kingdom, of their own.⁷

This current hemimastigote study does not compare genomes; it compares concatenated gene sets from existing eukaryotic sequences and extensively culled transcriptome sequences. Nevertheless, it provides enough data to indicate that a new supergroup of organisms exists that are “always distantly related”⁸ to other known eukaryotes. Certainly, this finding can be fit into an evolutionary interpretation of the data. However, researchers do so with statistically based inferences, a degree of subjectivity, a degree of uncertainty, and speculation, as indicated by the authors, methods, and supporting phylogenomic analyses.⁹ Evolutionary interpretations are always possible. However, the data in this study suggests that an independent hierarchy of organisms has been discovered and is now partially described. It also highlights some possible molecular archetypes such as Golgi and cytoskeletal proteins and additional proteins involved in membrane trafficking.

Regardless of whether evolution or progressive creationism is true, this study shows that some model features may be predicted, but others are not predictable and must simply be discovered. This is the nature of reality and is a first principle for progressive creationism.

Why So Many Similarities if Evolution Isn’t True?

I hear this question from time to time. My response is that it really should be no surprise that life shares common design at molecular levels, not because evolution is necessarily true or because God was limited in imagination or by designated physical laws of this creation, but because God’s providence provides for our stewardship of creation as vice-regents bearing his image and entrusted with creation’s care. Because all life shares common building blocks and similar biological processes, we can study a variety of organisms and gain knowledge that allows us to discover true biological (metabolic and physiological) features about ourselves and other organisms where direct study would be ethically prohibitive or physically unfeasible. All discoveries demonstrate how God in his goodness has designed and populated a world for our delight, discovery, and good stewardship.

Evolution. It almost seems like a swear word in Christian circles. It certainly evokes strong feelings. Atheists often use evolution as a way to eliminate the need for God. Christians regularly demonize the concept (ever heard it pronounced “evilution”?) and blame it for many of society’s ills. As believers (especially those of us who are parents, teachers, and youth pastors) we must prepare ourselves (and those we know) to handle this emotion-laden topic with Christ-like character. But how?

When I face antagonism from various camps in the evolution-creation debates, the counsel I received from a wise pastor guides me: “Before arguing against a position, make sure you understand it well enough to argue for it!” To start, Christians must know what the Bible does and does not say about when, how, and why God created. Without this understanding, we might generate confl icts where none exist or even miss out on powerful support for creation. Such knowledge also provides a firm, biblical foundation for studying what evolution really entails and why most scientists think it an apt description of life’s history.

Studying biblical creation teachings and examining scientific research (instead of avoiding it) will help believers develop a robust theology of creation that strengthens our faith and prepares us to guide the next generation through the evolution-creation maze. After all, is it not better that students navigate this often-contentious issue under the guidance of wellequipped, knowledgeable Christians? Will it not also make them (and us) better able to listen to and encourage our nonbelieving friends and family to consider the truth of God?

To help you on your journey, Reasons to Believe has developed an online video program entitled Through The Lens. One of the two series produced thus far addresses various scientific and biblical issues related to evolutionary theory (the other, to astronomy) and is now available on DVD. These videos are designed to help you understand general principles of how science and the Bible intersect. They also highlight specific areas for fruitful, in-depth study.

The ideas entailed in the theory of evolution need not evoke fear or defensiveness. Instead, appropriate preparation will enable Christians to show how God’s creation and Scripture agree, and to do so in a way that engages the skeptic and demonstrates God’s love and mercy for all.

Some creationists claim scientists have found dinosaur blood—actual red blood cells—in the bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex. This, they say, is proof of a recent creation. They argue dinosaur bone should be completely fossilized if it is millions of years old, but the discovery of blood cells in “fresh” bone proves dinosaur remains are only a few thousand years old.

The dinosaur blood claim has gained wide acceptance in young-earth circles. It is stated in much of their printed material and on many of their websites. It has even been presented to school boards as evidence of a young earth and reason for allowing creation “science” into the classroom.¹ Given its wide dispersal, it is important to assess the validity of the claim.

Origin of Claim

The major source of dinosaur blood claim is a 1997 article by Carl Wieland titled “Sensational Dinosaur Blood Report!”² Wieland is a young-earth creationist and managing director of Creation Ministries International, Australia (part of Answers in Genesis at the time this article was originally written). The article states Montana State University researchers found “traces of real blood” in the leg bone of a Tyrannosaurus rex.

Wieland reports the researchers noticed some parts deep inside the T. rex bone had not completely fossilized. Examining a thin section of the bone through a microscope, they noticed tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center, in the blood vessel channels. When one their colleagues looked at the objects, he shouted, “You’ve got red blood cells!” Mary Schweitzer, the lead researcher, was skeptical the objects could be blood cells and expressed her doubts to her boss, famous paleontologist Jack Horner. Horner suggested the researchers try to prove objects were not blood cells. According to Schweitzer, “So far, we haven’t been able to.”

Weiland describes several tests the researchers conducted that indicate the presence of hemoglobin—the protein in red blood cells that makes blood red and carries oxygen throughout the body. He concludes with the following statement:

Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable shapes of red blood cells, in unfossilized dinosaur bone is powerful testimony against the whole idea of dinosaurs living millions of years ago. It speaks volumes for the Bible’s account of a recent creation.

Weiland also states “to find unfossilized dinosaur bone is already an indication more consistent with a young age for the fossils.” And, in a sidebar titled, “More on Fresh Dino Bone,” he states:

To claim that bone could remain intact for millions of year without being fossilized (mineralized) stretches credibility. The report here of red blood cells in an unfossilized section of dinosaur bone is not the first time such bone has been found.

Examining the Source

Wieland’s article is based on a 1997 account of the work of Montana State University researchers published in Earth magazine titled, “The Real Jurassic Park.”³ The Earth article focused on the possibility of finding dinosaur DNA, a popular topic at the time due to the release of Steven Spielberg’s film Jurassic Park. Because Earth was written for the general public (it is not a scientific journal) the article was a journalistic blend of fact and hyperbole—yet even it presented a more subdued picture of the facts than then the one Wieland painted.

Wieland argues the researchers found actual red blood cells. However, in reading the Earth article, it is apparent no actual blood cells were found—the objects Schweitzer’s team detected merely resembled blood cells. (Note: real red blood cells appear as translucent red objects with a lighter center and dark, refractive outer membrane.) The researchers describe the objects as “mysterious structures at best derived from blood” and “unknown structures…[perhaps] derived from red blood cells.”⁴ Schweitzer also clearly states she did not believe the objects were red blood cells:

So I showed these microscopic bone slices to my boss, paleontologist Jack Horner, renowned for his work on dinosaur nesting sites. He took a long look and then asked, “So you think these are red blood cells?” I said, “No.”⁵

In his article, Wieland states the T. rex bone contained traces of hemoglobin. However, the researchers do not make this claim, instead saying:

By now, we felt fairly comfortable claiming that these dinosaurs tissues contained heme. But heme doesn’t quite equal hemoglobin. Some other proteins that contain absolutely no hemoglobin do contain a heme unit.⁶

In fact, in the concluding paragraphs, the researchers state they are not even certain if the objects in the T. rex bone are blood products:

So far, we think that all this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme and hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, “Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues.”⁷

Wieland declares unfossilized dinosaur bone is an indication of a young age for the fossils. While the Earth article does not go into length about the fossilization process, it is clear the researchers were not troubled by the fact the bone was not completely fossilized. They explain:

Normally a bone becomes fossilized with the help of groundwater, which permeates it, washes away its organic components and replaces them with minerals.…One possible explanation was that not much water had gotten into this T. rex. If that was true, then some biomolecules could remain.⁸

Additionally, Wieland insists that the presence of hemoglobin in the T. rex bone tissue casts doubt upon the millions-of-years idea. However, in the Earth article, the researchers state hemoglobin products are known to survive for a very long time:

We also thought hemoglobin could be in the tissue because at its core are structures that have a reputation for durability. Called heme units, these chemically stable structures consist of a ringlike organic compound called porphyrin bound to an iron atom. Porphyrins are an important part of many biological molecules, including chlorophyll, which plants need for photosynthesis. Porphyrins derived from chlorophyll have been found in sediments dating back to the Carboniferous, when vast forests blanketed the planet many millions of years before the dinosaurs existed. So we did not think it too far-fetched that heme units from hemoglobin might still exist in our T. rex.⁹

In comparing the two articles, it is apparent Wieland was very selective in the information he reported. The excitement he says the researchers were struggling to restrain was not that they had found red blood cells but the possibility they had found residual blood products that might contain dinosaur DNA—the focus of the Earth article. Wieland also states the researchers were unable to prove the objects were not red blood cells. This is true but they were also unable to prove they were red blood cells.

Additional Facts

Since 1997, Answers in Genesis (AIG) has also continued to claim the objects were actual red blood cells. For example, in the 1999 book, Jonathan Sarfati states:

Red blood cells and hemoglobin have been found in some (unfossilized!) dinosaur bone. But these could not last more than a few thousand years…¹⁰

And, The New Answers Book 1 (2006), states:

There is also physical evidence that dinosaur bones are not millions of years old. Scientists from Montana State University found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Sections of the bones were like fresh bone and contained what seems to be blood cells and hemoglobin. If these bones really were tens of millions of years old, then the blood cells and hemoglobin would have totally disintegrated. Also, there should not be ‘fresh’ bone if they were really millions of years old.¹¹

Furthermore, Wieland continues to stand behind his claim. In a 2002 exchange titled, “Evolutionist Questions AIG Report—Have Red Blood Cells Really Been Found in T. rex Fossils,” Wieland responds to a critic’s statement that the objects are not blood cells by saying:

This seems rather disingenuous, since they saw what appeared to be red blood cells under the microscope. Obviously, this was stunning, and it was Jack Horner who, as we cited, suggested to Mary Schweitzer that she try to disprove that they were red blood cells that were being seen by these people under the microscope.¹²

And, elsewhere in the exchange Wieland comments:

…there is no reason for a scrap of retreat from my earlier statements above that a) the evidence is consistent with morphologically intact red blood cells having been discovered…b) the evidence is overwhelmingly more consistent with the belief that the fossils are not millions of year old than with the converse.¹³

The problem is the dinosaur blood claim is derived from the Earth article, which was a popularization of the research conducted by Schweitzer and her colleagues. The actual research papers, on which the Earth article was based, do not indicate the presence of actual red blood cells. One paper published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences states:

The biochemical and biophysical data…provide powerful support for the hypothesis that some form of heme as well as fragments of hemoglobin proteins are preserved with the dinosaur tissues.¹⁴

The other paper published in the Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology points out:

Results indicate that the analyzed tissue contains numerous biomolecules. While some of the biomolecules are most likely contaminants, the probable presence of collagen type I suggests that some molecules of dinosaurian origin in these tissues.¹⁵

After the Earth article, Schweitzer and her colleagues published another paper in the Annales de Paléontolgie. Here the researchers more explicitly insist that the structures in the T. rex bone were not red blood cells:

Clearly these structures are not functional cells. However, one possibility is that they represent diagenetic alteration of original blood remnants, such as complexes of hemoglobin breakdown products, a possibility supported by other data that demonstrate that organic components remain in these dinosaur tissues.¹⁶

Given the controversy created by Wieland’s own article, a number of people have contacted the researchers to determine if objects were red blood cells. In Jack Horner’s response to a student at Indiana University Southeast, he states:

No cells have been found in any dinosaurs, but the remnants of red blood cells have been hypothesized on the basis of Heme [sic], a kind of iron produced biologically. The discovery of heme, by my graduate student Mary Schweitzer, in a skeleton of T-rex…indicates that the remains of cells can be preserved.¹⁷

And, in a response to Jack DeBaun (the person debating Wieland in the 2002 exchange mentioned previously), Horner states:

What we found was heme, a form of iron that has a biological origin, but of course, not any soft tissue or any other component of a cell. It’s preserved because it’s iron.¹⁸

Conclusion

Were actual red blood cells found in the T. rex bone as young-earth creationists claim? The data says “no.” The objects may be the remnants of blood cells—residual products resulting from cellular breakdown—but they clearly lack cell walls and other structures to claim they are red blood cells. Interestingly, Wieland seems to admit as much in his 2002 exchange with DeBaun where he says:

The immunological reaction was the factor that, coupled with the histological appearance, made it more reasonable to claim these were actual red blood cells (i.e., their remains) [emphasis added].¹⁹

What is significant about this statement is, for the first time, Wieland seems to clarify that what he and other young-earth creationists are calling red blood cells are, in fact, cell remains. The problem is, regardless of the spin one puts on it, cell remains are not “real blood” and “morphologically intact red blood cells.”

Young-earth creationists continue to cite the Earth article and ignore the other data, including the statements from Horner, that no blood cells were found. They claim scientists have simply back-peddled from the original findings because admitting the objects were blood cells undermines the evolutionary dating scheme. However, the discovery of intact dinosaur blood cells would be an amazing find. What researcher would want to keep it quiet? At the same, what researcher would be able to keep it quiet? To suggest a broad conspiracy among researchers to hide such a discovery is simply ludicrous.

As Christians, we have a responsibility to pursue truth in all matters. When we are wrong, we need to admit it. If we are unwilling to admit our errors in matters of science, why should anyone believe our statements about matters of theology? Intentional or not, young-earth creationists have fostered the idea that actual dinosaur blood—intact red bloods with hemoglobin—was found by Schweitzer and her colleagues. Rather than digging in their heels, they should at the very least, provide full disclosure of the facts surrounding this discovery.

---

Greg MooreRTB apologist Greg Moore received his Bachelor of Arts degree in business administration from Washington State University in 1975, and currently serves as a program manager for the City of Everett in Everett, Washington.

---

Acknowledgments:

The author would like to thank Gary S. Hurd, PhD, for his treatment of this topic in “Dino-blood and the Young Earth,” which served as a background to this article.

Which model, naturalistic evolution or supernatural creation, best explains the pattern of life’s history on Earth? If a test produces “strikingly divergent results” for the expectations of a model, what does that tell us? A new study on speciation and extinction rates provides persuasive evidence.

Model Tenets
A fundamental tenet of all naturalistic models for the history of Earth’s life is that natural changes in the genomes of life will be responsible for the observed changes in the physical body structures (morphology) of life. Consequently, evolutionary trees (phylogenies, see figure 1) developed from the observed patterns in present-day genomes and the presumed natural rates of change of those genomes (molecular clocks). Assuming that strictly natural processes are responsible for the changes occurring throughout the history of life, the phylogenetic trees should match the morphological changes and the timing of those changes observed in the fossil record (or paleontological trees—see figure 2).

The same kind of match between the paleontology and phylogenetics can be realized if God intervened throughout life’s history. However, apparently only supernatural interventions can explain significant mismatches between phylogenetic and paleontological trees.

 

Figure 1: Phylogenetic Tree of Life Derived from Completely Sequenced Genomes. The center represents the presumed first life-form on Earth. The genomes denoted on the outer circle are based on actual genetic data. The branching patterns in the inner circle presume that all species are entirely related to one another through strictly natural processes. Image credit: Ivica Letunic

Figure 2: Spindle Diagram of the Presumed Evolution of Vertebrates. Width of the spindles indicates the number of extant families or the number of families represented in the fossil record. The curved (presumed) connecting lines are not supported by any physical remains. Image credit: Peter Bockman

In an open-access paper published in Nature Communications¹, four computational biologists and biochemists led equally by Daniele Silvestro and Rachel Warnock concede:

“The fossil record and molecular phylogenies of living species can provide independent estimates of speciation and extinction rates, but often produce strikingly divergent results.”²

Silvestro, Warnock, and their two colleagues do not concede, however, that supernatural interventions explain the “strikingly divergent results.” They attempt to offer a possible naturalistic explanation.

Divergence Is Real and Striking
Biologists use over a dozen different definitions of a species. In their paper, the Silvestro-Warnock team defines a species as “an identifiable taxonomic unit (a lineage) that can persist through time, give rise to other species, and become extinct.”³

The team first recognizes that since “extant and fossil species are samples of the same underlying diversification process,”⁴ if the diversification process is by strictly natural means, researchers expect that in all cases the phylogenetic (presumed evolutionary) trees will match the paleontological (fossil record) trees. To put it another way, a match is expected since “methods used to estimate rates [of change] from fossils and phylogenies are based on the same underlying mathematical birth-death theory.”⁵ The team then documents that evolutionary biologists can no longer deny the frequent and striking divergences between phylogenetic and paleontological trees.

The Silvestro-Warnock team cited a recent study of extant terrestrial Carnivora.⁶ There, the estimated mean species longevity based on fossil evidence was 2.0 million years, contrasted with 9.8 million years derived from phylogenetics. They also cited a study demonstrating incongruence between phylogenies and fossils for primates.⁷ They noted that, at least for mammals, the occurrences of congruence are few.⁸

Speciation rates derived from phylogenetics consistently supersede those derived from the fossil record, while derived extinction rates are consistently lower than speciation rates. Perhaps the best studied example (see featured image) is for cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises). The Silvestro-Warnock team cited research showing:

“Phylogenetic estimates of diversification rates among cetaceans suggest speciation has exceeded extinction over the past 12 Myr⁹ implying diversity has increased towards the recent. In contrast, analyses of the cetacean fossil record indicate extinction has exceeded speciation over this same interval, and that the diversity of cetaceans was in fact much higher than it is today.”¹⁰

In other words, the naturalistic biological evolution model based on phylogenetics predicts that introduction of new species has exceeded extinctions, but the fossil record shows that the reverse is true. The research team did not address the fact that the discrepancies between phylogenetics and the fossil record appear to increase with the complexity and the adult body size of the genus. By contrast, such a correlation is predicted from a biblical creation model perspective for life.¹¹

Silvestro, Warnock and collaborators do point out that several other researchers have attempted to explain the discrepancies by underestimates of the statistical and systematic errors in the two methods. However, the discrepancies in fact are much too large to be attributed to these errors.¹²

Attempted Reconciliation
The Silvestro-Warnock team suggests that many of the discrepancies between phylogenetics and the fossil record are due to sensitivities to different speciation modes. They identify three distinct modes of speciation that can leave behind fossil evidence without impacting the calculated phylogenetic trees:

1. Cladogenesis via budding: a speciation event that gives rise to one new species. The ancestral species persists and no extinction occurs.
2. Cladogenesis via bifurcation: a speciation event that gives rise to two new species, replacing the ancestral species, which becomes extinct.
3. Anagenetic speciation: evolutionary changes along a lineage that result in the origination of one new species and the extinction of the ancestral species.

They also point out that extinction without replacement is a frequent occurrence, where a species becomes extinct without leaving any descendants. More simply put, the fossil record includes extinct and extant (living) species; whereas phylogenetic data typically include extant species only.

Silvestro, Warnock, and their colleagues developed a model in which they unify budding, bifurcation, anagenesis, and extinction in a single “birth−death chronospecies” (BDC) process. Their BDC model shows that phylogenetic and paleontological speciation and extinction rate estimates will only be equal if all speciation has occurred through budding. Furthermore, they demonstrate that “even in an ideal scenario with fully sampled and errorless data sets, speciation and extinction rates can only be equal across phylogenetic and stratigraphic inferences if all speciation events have occurred through budding and no speciation has occurred through bifurcation or anagenesis”¹³ (emphasis added). Their BDC model also reveals that phylogenetic analysis indicating extinction equal to zero does not imply that no extinction occurred.

Actual Reconciliation
The team’s BDC model establishes that relative to the fossil record, phylogenetics always underestimates extinction rates. The fossil record, which is largely incomplete, underestimates the true extinction rates. Much higher extinction rates pose a serious challenge to all strictly naturalistic models for Earth’s life because higher extinction rates require higher speciation rates to explain the increasing diversity of life observed in the fossil record throughout life’s history.

This requirement of higher speciation rates is all the more problematic for Earth’s most advanced species. For mammals, birds, and advanced plants, the observed extinction rates far exceed the observed speciation rates during the era of human existence (God’s seventh day when, according to Genesis 2, God ceased from his creation work and allowed natural processes operate).

The Silvestro-Warnock BDC model also exposes a fundamental limitation in naturalistic explanations for the history of Earth’s life. Since all naturalistic models require more than one speciation mode, and since the only way to reconcile phylogenetics and paleontology is to posit just one speciation mode, something other than strictly natural processes must operate.

Some evolutionary biologists will insist on the caveat that perhaps some unknown natural process might salvage a reconciliation between phylogenetics and paleontology. However, it is difficult to conceive how a natural process of sufficient magnitude to reconcile phylogenetics and paleontology could remain undiscovered. It appears to me that a creation model positing that the supernatural Creator intervened at several times throughout life’s history to replace life-forms driven to extinction fully reconciles this “discrepancy.” I am reminded of a verse (Psalm 104:24) from the longest of the creation psalms:

How many are your works, Lord! In wisdom you made them all; the earth is full of your creatures.

Featured image: Nine Different Cetacean Species. Featured image credit: Little Jerry, Creative Commons Attribution

I finally upgraded my iPhone a few weeks ago from a 5s to an 8 Plus. I had little choice. The battery on my cell phone would no longer hold a charge.

I’d put off getting a new one for as long as possible. It just didn’t make sense to spend money chasing the latest and greatest technology when current cell phone technology worked perfectly fine for me. Apart from the battery life and a less-than-ideal camera, I was happy with my iPhone 5s. Now I am really glad I made the switch.

Then, the other day I caught myself wistfully eyeing the iPhone X. And, today, I learned that Apple is preparing the release of the iPhone 11 (or XI or XT). Where will Apple’s technology upgrades take us next? I can’t wait to find out.

Have I become a technology junkie?

It is remarkable how quickly cell phone technology advances. It is also remarkable how alluring new technology can be. The next thing you know, Apple will release an iPhone that will assemble itself when it comes out of the box. . . . Probably not.

But, if the work of engineers at MIT ever reaches fruition, it is possible that smartphone manufacturers one day just might rely on a self-assembly process to produce cell phones.

A Self-Assembling Cell Phone

The Self-Assembly Lab at MIT has developed a pilot process to manufacture cell phones by self-assembly.

To do this, they designed their cell phone to consist of six parts that fit together in a lock-in-key manner. By placing the cell phone pieces into a tumbler that turns at the just-right speed, the pieces automatically combine with one another, bit by bit, until the cell phone is assembled.

Few errors occur during the assembly process. Only pieces designed to fit together combine with one another because of the lock-in-key fabrication.

Self-Assembly and the Case for a Creator

It is quite likely that the work of MIT’s Self-Assembly Lab (and other labs like it) will one day revolutionize manufacturing—not just for iPhones, but for other types of products as well.

As alluring as this new technology might be, I am more intrigued by its implications for the creation-evolution controversy. What do self-assembly processes have to do with the creation-evolution debate? More than we might realize.

I believe self-assembly processes strengthen the watchmaker argument for God’s existence (and role in the origin of life). Namely, this cutting-edge technology makes it possible to respond to a common objection leveled against this design argument.

To understand why this engineering breakthrough is so important for the Watchmaker argument, a little background is necessary.

The Watchmaker Argument

Anglican natural theologian William Paley (1743–1805) posited the Watchmaker argument in the eighteenth century. It went on to become one of the best-known arguments for God’s existence. The argument hinges on the comparison Paley made between a watch and a rock. He argued that a rock’s existence can be explained by the outworking of natural processes—not so for a watch.

The characteristics of a watch—specifically the complex interaction of its precision parts for the purpose of telling time—implied the work of an intelligent designer. Employing an analogy, Paley asserted that just as a watch requires a watchmaker, so too, life requires a Creator. Paley noted that biological systems display a wide range of features characterized by the precise interplay of complex parts designed to interact for specific purposes. In other words, biological systems have much more in common with a watch than a rock. This similarity being the case, it logically follows that life must stem from the work of a Divine Watchmaker.

Biochemistry and the Watchmaker Argument

As I discuss in my book The Cell’s Design, advances in biochemistry have reinvigorated the Watchmaker argument. The hallmark features of biochemical systems are precisely the same properties displayed in objects, devices, and systems designed and crafted by humans.

Cells contain protein complexes that are structured to operate as biomolecular motors and machines. Some molecular-level biomachines are strict analogs to machinery produced by human designers. In fact, in many instances, a one-to-one relationship exists between the parts of manufactured machines and the molecular components of biomachines. (A few examples of these biomolecular machines are discussed in the articles listed in the Resources section.)

We know that machines originate in human minds that comprehend and then implement designs. So, when scientists discover example after example of biomolecular machines inside the cell with an eerie and startling similarity to the machines we produce, it makes sense to conclude that these machines and, hence, life, must also have originated in a Mind.

A Skeptic’s Challenge

As you might imagine, skeptics have leveled objections against the Watchmaker argument since its introduction in the 1700s. Today, when skeptics criticize the latest version of the Watchmaker argument (based on biochemical designs), the influence of Scottish skeptic David Hume (1711–1776) can be seen and felt.

In his 1779 work Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, Hume presented several criticisms of design arguments. The foremost centered on the nature of analogical reasoning. Hume argued that the conclusions resulting from analogical reasoning are only sound when the things compared are highly similar to each other. The more similar, the stronger the conclusion. The less similar, the weaker the conclusion.

Hume dismissed the original version of the Watchmaker argument by maintaining that organisms and watches are nothing alike. They are too dissimilar for a good analogy. In other words, what is true for a watch is not necessarily true for an organism and, therefore, it doesn’t follow that organisms require a Divine Watchmaker, just because a watch does.

In effect, this is one of the chief reasons why some skeptics today dismiss the biochemical Watchmaker argument. For example, philosopher Massimo Pigliucci has insisted that Paley’s analogy is purely metaphorical and does not reflect a true analogical relationship. He maintains that any similarity between biomolecular machines and human designs reflects merely illustrative analogies that life scientists use to communicate the structure and function of these protein complexes via familiar concepts and language. In other words, it is illegitimate to use the “analogies” between biomolecular machines and manufactured machines to make a case for a Creator.¹

A Response Based on Insights from Nanotechnology

I have responded to this objection by pointing out that nanotechnologists have isolated biomolecular machines from the cell and incorporated these protein complexes into nanodevices and nanosystems for the explicit purpose of taking advantage of their machine-like properties. These transplanted biomachines power motion and movements in the devices, which otherwise would be impossible with current technology. In other words, nanotechnologists view these biomolecular systems as actual machines and utilize them as such. Their work demonstrates that biomolecular machines are literal, not metaphorical, machines. (See the Resources section for articles describing this work.)

Is Self-Assembly Evidence of Evolution or Design?

Another criticism—inspired by Hume—is that machines designed by humans don’t self-assemble, but biochemical machines do. Skeptics say this undermines the Watchmaker analogy. I have heard this criticism in the past, but it came up recently in a dialogue I had with a skeptic in a Facebook group.

I wrote that “What we discover when we work out the structure and function of protein complexes are features that are akin to an automobile engine, not an outcropping of rocks.”

A skeptic named Maurice responded: “Your analogy is false. Cars do not spontaneously self-assemble—in that case there is a prohibitive energy barrier. But hexagonal lava rocks can and do—there is no energy barrier to prohibit that from happening.”

Maurice argues that my analogy is a poor one because protein complexes in the cell self-assemble, whereas automobile engines can’t. For Maurice (and other skeptics), this distinction serves to make manufactured machines qualitatively different from biomolecular machines. On the other hand, hexagonal patterns in lava rocks give the appearance of design but are actually formed spontaneously. For skeptics like Maurice, this feature indicates that the design displayed by protein complexes in the cell is apparent, not true, design.

Maurice added: “Given that nature can make hexagonal lava blocks look ‘designed,’ it can certainly make other objects look ‘designed.’ Design is not a scientific term.”

Self-Assembly and the Watchmaker Argument

This is where the MIT engineers’ fascinating work comes into play.

Engineers continue to make significant progress toward developing self-assembly processes for manufacturing purposes. It very well could be that in the future a number of machines and devices will be designed to self-assemble. Based on the researchers’ work, it becomes evident that part of the strategy for designing machines that self-assemble centers on creating components that not only contribute to the machine’s function, but also precisely interact with the other components so that the machine assembles on its own.

The operative word here is designed. For machines to self-assemble they must be designed to self-assemble.

This requirement holds true for biochemical machines, too. The protein subunits that interact to form the biomolecular machines appear to be designed for self-assembly. Protein-protein binding sites on the surface of the subunits mediate this self-assembly process. These binding sites require high-precision interactions to ensure that the binding between subunits takes place with a high degree of accuracy—in the same way that the MIT engineers designed the cell phone pieces to precisely combine through lock-in-key interactions.

Figure: ATP Synthase is a biomolecular motor that is literally an electrically powered rotary motor. This biomachine is assembled from protein subunits. Credit: Shutterstock

The level of design required to ensure that protein subunits interact precisely to form machine-like protein complexes is only beginning to come into full view.² Biochemists who work in the area of protein design still don’t fully understand the biophysical mechanisms that dictate the assembly of protein subunits. And, while they can design proteins that will self-assemble, they struggle to replicate the complexity of the self-assembly process that routinely takes place inside the cell.

Thanks to advances in technology, biomolecular machines’ ability to self-assemble should no longer count against the Watchmaker argument. Instead, self-assembly becomes one more feature that strengthens Paley’s point.

The Watchmaker Prediction

Advances in self-assembly also satisfy the Watchmaker prediction, further strengthening the case for a Creator. In conjunction with my presentation of the revitalized Watchmaker argument in The Cell’s Design, I proposed the Watchmaker prediction. I contend that many of the cell’s molecular systems currently go unrecognized as analogs to human designs because the corresponding technology has yet to be developed.

The possibility that advances in human technology will ultimately mirror the molecular technology that already exists as an integral part of biochemical systems leads to the Watchmaker prediction. As human designers develop new technologies, examples of these technologies, though previously unrecognized, will become evident in the operation of the cell’s molecular systems. In other words, if the Watchmaker argument truly serves as evidence for a Creator’s existence, then it is reasonable to expect that life’s biochemical machinery anticipates human technological advances.

In effect, the developments in self-assembly technology and its prospective use in future manufacturing operations fulfill the Watchmaker prediction. Along these lines, it’s even more provocative to think that cellular self-assembly processes are providing insight to engineers who are working to develop similar technology.

Maybe I am a technology junkie, after all. I find it remarkable that as we develop new technologies we discover that they already exist in the cell, and because they do the Watchmaker argument becomes more and more compelling.

Can you hear me now?

Resources

• The Cell’s Design: How Chemistry Reveals the Creator’s Artistry by Fazale Rana (Book)

The Biochemical Watchmaker Argument

• “A Biochemical Watch Found in a Cellular Heath” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “The Provocative Case for Intelligent Design: New Discovery Highlights Machine-Like Character of the Bacterial Flagellum” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Bacterial Flagellum Structure Stacks the Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Protein Structures Reveal Even More Evidence for Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “New Discovery Pumps Up Evidence for Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Electron Transport Chain Protein Complexes Rev Up the Case for Design” by Fazale Rana (article)

Challenges to the Biochemical Watchmaker Argument

• “Addressing the Concerns of a Critic and the Case for Intelligent Design” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “Nanodevices Make Megascopic Statement” by Fazale Rana (article)
• “A Cornucopia of Evidence for Intelligent Design: DNA Packaging of the T4 Virus” by Fazale Rana (article)

Before joining Reasons to Believe, I worked for nearly a decade in research and development (R&D) for a Fortune 500 company. During my tenure, on several occasions I was assigned to work on a “resurrected” project—one that was mothballed years earlier for one reason or another but was then deemed worthy of another go-around by upper management.

Of course, the first thing we did when we began work on the “old-project-made-new” was to review the work done by the previous R&D team. Invariably, we would come across things they had done that didn’t make sense to us whatsoever. I quickly learned that instead of deriding the previous team members for their questionable decision-making skills and flawed strategy, it was better to track down past team members and find out why they did things the way they did. Almost always, there were good reasons justifying their decisions. In fact, understanding their rationale often revealed an ingenuity to their approach.

The same can be said for mitochondria—bean-shaped organelles found in eukaryotic cells. Mitochondria play a crucial role in producing the energy that powers the cell’s operations. Based on a number of features possessed by these organelles—features that seemingly don’t make sense if mitochondria were created by a Divine Mind—many biologists believe that mitochondria have an evolutionary origin. Yet, as we learn more about mitochondria, scientists are discovering that the features that we thought made little sense from a creation model vantage point have a rationale for why they are the way they are. In fact, these features reflect an underlying ingenuity, as work by biochemists from Germany attests.¹

We will take a look at the work of these biochemists later in this article. But first, it would be helpful to understand why evolutionary biologists think that the design of mitochondria makes no sense if these subcellular structures are to be understood as a Creator’s handiwork.

The Endosymbiont Hypothesis

Most evolutionary biologists believe the best explanation for the origin of mitochondria is the endosymbiont hypothesis. Lynn Margulis (1938–2011) advanced this idea to explain the origin of eukaryotic cells in the 1960s, building on the ideas of Russian botanist Konstantin Mereschkowsky.

Taught in introductory high school and college biology courses, Margulis’s work has become a cornerstone idea of the evolutionary paradigm. This classroom exposure explains why students often ask me about the endosymbiont hypothesis when I speak on university campuses. Many first-year biology students and professional life scientists alike find the evidence for the idea compelling and, consequently, view it as providing broad support for an evolutionary explanation for the history and design of life.

According to this hypothesis, complex cells originated when symbiotic relationships formed among single-celled microbes after free-living bacterial and/or archaeal cells were engulfed by a “host” microbe. (Ingested cells that take up permanent residence within other cells are referred to as “endosymbionts.”)

Presumably, organelles such as mitochondria were once endosymbionts. Once taken into the host cell, the endosymbionts then took up permanent residency within the host, with the endosymbiont growing and dividing inside the host. Over time, the endosymbionts and the host became mutually interdependent, with the endosymbionts providing a metabolic benefit for the host cell. The endosymbionts gradually evolved into organelles through a process referred to as “genome reduction.” This reduction resulted when genes from the endosymbionts’ genomes were transferred into the genome of the host organism. Eventually, the host cell evolved the machinery to produce the proteins needed by the former endosymbiont and processes to transport those proteins into the organelle’s interior.

Evidence for the Endosymbiont Hypothesis

The similarities between organelles and bacteria serve as the main line of evidence for the endosymbiont hypothesis. For example, mitochondria—which are believed to be descended from a group of alphaproteobacteria—are about the same size and shape as a typical bacterium and have a double-membrane structure like these gram-negative cells. These organelles also divide in a way that is reminiscent of bacterial cells.

Biochemical evidence also exists for the endosymbiont hypothesis. Evolutionary biologists view the presence of the diminutive mitochondrial genome as a vestige of this organelle’s evolutionary history. Additionally, biologists view the biochemical similarities between mitochondrial and bacterial genomes as further evidence for the evolutionary origin of these organelles.

The presence of the unique lipid cardiolipin in the mitochondrial inner membrane also serves as evidence for the endosymbiont hypothesis. This is an important lipid component of bacterial inner membranes. Yet it is not found in the membranes of eukaryotic cells—except for in the inner membranes of mitochondria. In fact, biochemists consider it a signature lipid for mitochondria and a vestige of this organelle’s evolutionary history.

Does the Endosymbiont Hypothesis Successfully Account for the Origin of Mitochondria?

Despite the seemingly compelling evidence for the endosymbiont hypothesis, when researchers attempt to delineate the details of a presumed evolutionary transition, it becomes readily apparent that biologists lack a genuine explanation for the origin of mitochondria and, in a broader context, the origin of eukaryotic cells. In three previous articles, I detail some of the scientific challenges facing the endosymbiont hypothesis:

• “Complex Protein Biogenesis Hints at Intelligent Design”
• “Evolutionary Paradigm Lacks Explanation for Origin of Mitochondria and Eukaryotic Cells”
• “Biology’s Big Bangs”

A Creation Model Approach for the Origin of Mitochondria

Given the scientific shortcomings of the endosymbiont hypothesis, is it reasonable to view mitochondria (and eukaryotic cells) as the work of a Creator?

I would maintain that it is. I argue that the shared similarities between mitochondria and alphaproteobacteria—which stand as the chief evidence for the endosymbiont hypothesis—reflect shared designs rather than a shared evolutionary history. It is common for human designers and engineers to reuse designs. So, why wouldn’t a Creator? See this article for more on this idea:

• “Archetype or Ancestor? Sir Richard Owen and the Case for Design.”

Why Do Mitochondria Have Their Own Genome and Cardiolipin in Their Inner Membranes?

However, to legitimately interpret the genesis of mitochondria from a creation model perspective, there must be a rationale for why mitochondria have their own diminutive genomes. And there has to be an explanation for why these organelles possess cardiolipin in their inner membranes, because on the surface, it appears as though mitochondrial genomes and cardiolipin are vestiges of the evolutionary history of these organelles.

As I have described previously (see the articles listed below), biochemists have recently learned that there are good reasons why mitochondria have their own genome—independent of the nuclear genome—and a sound rationale for the presence of cardiolipin in the inner membrane of these organelles. In other words, these features of mitochondria make sense from the vantage point of a creation model.

• “Why Do Mitochondria Have DNA?”
• “Mitochondrial Genomes: Evidence for Evolution or Creation?”
• “Can a Creation Model Explain the Origin of Mitochondria?”

Why Do Mitochondria Have Their Own Genetic Code?

But, there is at least one other troubling feature of mitochondrial genomes that requires an explanation if we are to legitimately view these organelles as the handiwork of a Creator. For if they are a Creator’s handiwork, then why do mitochondria make use of deviant, nonuniversal genetic codes? Again, at first blush it would seem that the nonuniversal genetic code in mitochondria reflects their evolutionary origin. To understand why mitochondria have their own genetic code, a little background information is in order.

A Universal Genetic Code

The genetic code is a set of rules that define the information stored in DNA. These rules specify the sequence of amino acids that the cell’s machinery uses to build proteins. The genetic code consists of coding units, called “codons,” where each codon corresponds to one of the 20 amino acids found in proteins.

To a first approximation, all life on Earth possesses the same genetic code. To put it another way, the genetic code is universal. However, there are examples of organisms that possess a genetic code that deviates from the universal code in one or two of the coding assignments. Presumably, these deviant codes originate when the universal genetic code evolves, altering coding assignments.

The Deviant Genetic Codes of Mitochondria

Quite frequently, mitochondrial genomes employ deviant codes. One of the most common differences between the universal genetic code and the one found in mitochondrial genomes is the reassignment of one of the codons that specifies isoleucine (in the universal code) so that it specifies methionine. In fact, evolutionary biologists believe that this evolutionary transition happened five times in independent mitochondrial lineages.²

So, while many biologists believe that the nonuniversal genetic codes in mitochondria can be explained through evolutionary mechanisms, creationists (and ID proponents) must come up with a compelling reason for a Creator to alter the universal genetic code in the genome of these organelles. This issue becomes particularly pressing because biochemists have come to learn that the rules that define the genetic code are exquisitely optimized for error minimization (among other things), as I discuss in these articles:

• “FYI: I.D. in DNA Deciphering Design in the Genetic Code”
• “The Genetic Code: Simply the Best”

The Genius of Deviant Codes in Mitochondria

So, is there a rationale for the reassignment of the isoleucine codon?

Work by a team of German biochemists provides an answer to this question—one that underscores an elegant molecular logic to the deviant genetic codes in mitochondria. These researchers provide evidence that the reassignment of the isoleucine codon for methionine protects proteins in the inner membrane of mitochondria from oxidative damage.

Metabolic reactions that take place in mitochondria during the energy harvesting process generate high levels of reactive oxygen species (ROS). These highly corrosive compounds will damage the lipids and the proteins of the mitochondrial inner membranes. The amino acid methionine is also readily oxidized by ROS to form methionine sulfoxide. Once this happens, the enzyme methionine sulfoxide reductase (MSR) reverses the oxidation reaction by reconverting the oxidized amino acid to methionine.

As a consequence of reassigning the isoleucine codon, methionine replaces isoleucine in the proteins encoded by the mitochondrial genome. Many of these proteins reside in the mitochondrial inner membrane. Interestingly, many of the isoleucine residues of the inner mitochondrial membrane proteins are located on the surfaces of the biomolecules. The replacement of isoleucine by methionine has minimal effect on the structure and function of these proteins because these two amino acids possess a similar size, shape, and hydrophobicity. But because methionine can react with ROS to form methionine sulfoxide and then be converted back to methionine by MSR, the mitochondrial inner membrane proteins and lipids are protected from oxidative damage. To put it another way, the codon reassignment results in a highly efficient antioxidant system for mitochondrial inner membranes.

The discovery of this antioxidant mechanism leads to another question: Why is the codon reassignment not universally found in the mitochondria of all organisms? As it turns out, the German biochemists discovered that this codon reassignment occurs in animals that are active, placing a high metabolic demand on mitochondria (and with it, concomitantly elevated production of ROS). On the other hand, this codon reassignment does not occur in Platyhelminthes (flatworms, which live without requiring oxygen) and inactive animals, such as sponges and echinoderms.

From a creation model vantage point, there are good reasons why things are the way they are regarding mitochondrial biochemistry. In fact, understanding the rationale for the design of mitochondria reveals an ingenuity to life’s designs.

The Counterpoints series produced by Zondervan Publishing “provides a forum for the comparison and critique of different views on issues important to Christians.”¹ Notable theologian Stanley Gundry is the series editor. The format for each book in the series is for three or four Christian leaders or scholars who are divided on an important Christian issue to each write an essay where they explain their position and briefly describe what they believe to be the best evidences for their position. Each essay is followed by responses from the other essayists and a brief rejoinder.

The Counterpoints series has featured books on creation, evolution, the early chapters of Genesis, and biblical inerrancy before. In these previous books the Reasons to Believe perspective was not presented. Consequently, over the past three decades we have had to continually deal with misunderstandings and misrepresentations of our positions and missions. Therefore, I jumped at the offer to participate in the latest book in the series, Four Views on Creation, Evolution, and Intelligent Design.² I saw my contribution as an opportunity to set the record straight on our mission and vision and on what we believe at Reasons to Believe and why we believe it.

The four authors for the book were the presidents of Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham), BioLogos (Deborah Haarsma), Discovery Institute (Stephen Meyer), and Reasons to Believe (Hugh Ross). Ken Ham (bachelor of applied science in environmental biology and diploma in education) defended young-earth creationism, Deborah Haarsma (PhD, astrophysics) defended evolutionary creationism, Stephen Meyer (PhD, history and philosophy of science) defended intelligent design, and I (PhD, astronomy) defended old-earth creationism.

The general editor for the book, James Stump (PhD, philosophy), is the senior editor for BioLogos—thus, he obviously favors the evolutionary creationism position. I was impressed, however, by how impartially Stump fulfilled his role as the book’s editor and how fairly and charitably he treated each author.

Originally, the four authors were to describe and defend their positions on creation, evolution, and the early chapters of Genesis. This assignment proved difficult for Meyer since the Discovery Institute and the intelligent design movement as a matter of policy “does not offer an interpretation of the book of Genesis, nor does it posit a theory about the length of the biblical days of creation or the age of the earth.”³ Thus, the book morphed into four views on creation, evolution, and intelligent design. Nevertheless, the other three authors did engage one another on their respective interpretations of Genesis 1–11.

I applaud Stump for requiring each of us authors to close our opening essays with what we considered to be the most significant biblical and scientific challenges to our respective positions. The subject of creation, evolution, and Genesis for the past two centuries has been typified by Christian leaders holding rigidly to their positions and refusing to consider any possible modifications or adjustments. By admitting and addressing both possible biblical and scientific challenges, we were all encouraged to go where the evidence goes.

I also applaud Stump for doing everything in his power to encourage a charitable dialogue among the authors. Readers will probably note that Stump’s objective was only partially achieved. However, as an insider I can attest that whatever lack of charity remains in the book is of no fault of Stump.

As for my own hopes for the book, I am grateful that the all-too-typical false dichotomy of young-earth creationism versus theistic evolution was countered. I was encouraged that I had the opportunity to correct the misunderstandings the other authors had about my views and motives. I was encouraged, too, that for the first time in print the four predominant positions on the science-faith spectrum were accurately and fairly presented. In particular, I was pleased that each author stated where they stood on the issue of biblical inspiration and inerrancy, especially the International Council on Biblical Inerrancy affirmations and denials, and why. While space prohibited laying out all the evidences for the respective positions, each of the authors had written several other books and articles where that had been done. We cited these other works in our contributions to enable any reader who wants to dig deeper to do so.

At 235 pages, the book is short enough to quickly provide both Christian and non-Christian readers an understanding of the scope and the passions of the science-faith debate within the Christian community. At the same time, it is long enough to be a useful textbook for Christian seminaries and colleges and for youth and adult classes in churches and Bible studies.

Little kids love to ask, “Why?” So do skeptics; however, their “why” questions aren’t asked to gain insight. Instead, they are rhetorical—posed to highlight inconsistencies between the way the world actually is and the ideal that arises out of the Christian worldview. In this vein, skeptics object to the notion of creation and intelligent design by asking, “If God is responsible for creating life, why are there so many ‘bad designs’ in nature?”

Even though biological systems appear to be designed for a purpose, skeptics are quick to point out features that appear to be cobbled together by evolutionary processes from preexisting structures. They assert that poorly designed systems aren’t what anyone would expect if an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-benevolent Creator brought life into existence. On the other hand, marginally designed systems—which appear to be kludged together—are exactly what one would assume if evolutionary processes are responsible for life’s origin, history, and design.

One example of intracellular biological structures that seem to be kludged together is organelles, such as mitochondria and chloroplasts. Life scientists point to the genomes found in these organelles as evidence for their evolutionary origin. Each of these subcellular components possesses a small, circular piece of DNA housed within its interior (the lumen). Mitochondrial genomes are around 20,000 base pairs in size, encoding about 35 to 40 proteins. Chloroplast genomes are around 120,000 base pairs in size, encoding between 60 and 100 proteins. For reference, the smallest known genome—found in the bacterium Mycoplasma genitalium—is comprised of about 480,000 genetic letters, specifying around 500 proteins.

Evolutionary biologists believe that these two organelles originated through a process known as endosymbiosis. According to this idea, complex eukaryotic cells originated through a symbiotic relationship among single-celled microbes when free-living bacteria and archea were taken inside another cell as an endosymbiont. Presumably, mitochondria are derived from Rickettsiales, and chloroplasts from cyanobacteria. Once taken inside the host cell, these microbes established a permanent symbiotic relationship with the host, with one cell living inside the other. After this event occurred, the endosymbiont (engulfed microbe) and the host became mutually interdependent, with the endosymbiont producing food for the host cell. According to the endosymbiotic hypothesis, over time the endosymbionts evolved into organelles through a process referred to as genome reduction. This reduction resulted when genes from the endosymbiont’s genome were transferred into the genome of the host organism. Eventually, the host cell evolved the machinery to produce the proteins needed by the endosymbiont to transport those proteins into the endosymbiont’s interior. During the transformation from endosymbiont into organelle, the genome reduction was extreme. For example, a typical cyanobacterium has over 2,000 genes, easily 10 times the number of genes found in a chloroplast.

In light of these processes, the presence of reduced genomes in mitochondria and chloroplasts seemingly represents the vestiges of the evolutionary origin of these two organelles. This begs the question: Why haven’t all of the genes in these organellar genomes been transferred to the host genome? According to some evolutionary biologists, the partial genomes of these organelles could be viewed as transitional in nature. Given more time, the transfer will eventually become complete. In support of this view, they point to other organelles such as mitosomes and hydrogenosomes, which completely lack genomes. Presumably, the gene transfer process has been completed in these endosymbionts-turned-organelles. They also point to the fact that mitochondrial genomes from different organisms possess a differing number of genes, connoting that gene transfer is in differing stages in these organisms.

Maintaining organellar genomes is a costly prospect for the host cell. Typically, a couple hundred proteins are needed to support the production of proteins encoded in mitochondrial genomes. This appears to be an unnecessary feature of the cell’s chemistry because it would be more efficient to produce all the proteins in the cytoplasm and then transport them to the organelles. Evolutionary biologists take this inefficiency and waste as added support for the evolutionary origin of these organelles.

Skeptics versed in biology reasonably ask why an all-knowing, all-powerful, and all-benevolent Creator would produce organelles with genomes. Recent work by investigators from Sweden provides an answer to this question.¹ Their research supplies a reason for why organelles possess genomes and why these genomes must encode proteins—albeit, a limited number.

The researchers demonstrated that the proteins encoded by mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes have distinct structural features. (Namely, they are proteins associated with the organellar membranes, comprised of a large number of hydrophobic amino acids.) If these proteins were encoded in the nuclear genome and produced in the cytoplasm—instead of the lumen of mitochondria and chloroplasts, as they actually are—the proteins would be transported to the endoplasmic reticulum (ER) instead of the mitochondria and/or chloroplasts. The cell’s machinery that directs proteins to the ER can’t discriminate between the proteins of the ER and a select number that should be targeted to mitochondria and chloroplast because of the common structural features these two groups of proteins share. Therefore, to ensure that the appropriate proteins wind up in the membranes surrounding mitochondria and chloroplasts, these biomolecules must be produced in the interior of these organelles. This requirement entails that these organelles have genomes within their lumen to encode the information needed by the organelle’s machinery to make these specialized membrane proteins.

So, a biochemical logic undergirds the structure and function of mitochondrial and chloroplast genomes. The existence of this rationale makes it reasonable to view organelles, such as the mitochondria and chloroplasts, as the Creator’s handiwork. Like most biological systems, these organelles appear to be designed for a purpose. So when a skeptic asks why organelles have genomes, creation and intelligent design proponents now have a ready answer.

People are always surprised to learn that I have never seen Jurassic Park (or any of its sequels), and I probably won’t see Jurassic World, either. That doesn’t keep folks from asking me if scientists will ever be able to resurrect dinosaurs. Fortunately, I can answer that question without seeing a blockbuster movie.

It’s unlikely we will ever be able to resurrect a dinosaur from ancient DNA. DNA can’t be recovered from insects trapped in amber, and it’s not stable enough to survive in dinosaur remains. Even with access to a complete dinosaur genome, scientists would face insurmountable technical hurdles if they tried to convert the genome into a living, breathing creature. (For a detailed discussion of some of those difficulties, check out this podcast.)

Still, some researchers—such as legendary paleontologist Jack Horner—think we might be able to recreate dinosaurs by manipulating the developmental process of chickens (and other birds) to turn them into dinosaur-like creatures.

Researchers from Harvard and Yale have moved the scientific community one step closer to creating a “chickenosaurus” by genetically engineering chickens to develop snout-like structures, instead of beaks, just like dinosaurs.¹ For biologists, the significance of this work has little to do with the prospects of bringing dinosaurs back to life, but instead helps them understand how beaks emerged as an evolutionary innovation.

Paleontologists argue that shared anatomical features between birds and dinosaurs (classed as theropods) demonstrate a shared evolutionary history. So, too, do feathered dinosaurs. Work like this latest venture reinforces the notion that birds descended from dinosaurs by seemingly providing insights into the types of molecular and developmental changes responsible for bird evolution.

Reverse Evolution

The Harvard-Yale work also serves as a harbinger of “reverse evolution,” a new approach to paleontology.² The idea is to gain understanding of how biological transformations took place by reverting organisms to their ancestral state. Reverse evolution experiments fuse insights from paleontology with those from developmental biology, molecular biology, comparative embryology, and genomics. For the first time, researchers can address questions in evolutionary biology using an experimental strategy.

The Harvard-Yale investigators chose to study the origin of beaks because beaks are a defining feature of modern birds and a key biological innovation in life’s history. Beaks’ diverse functions allow birds to exploit a wide range of ecological niches.

Reversing the Evolution of Beaks

Paleontologists compared the skeletal anatomy of modern birds with ancient birds (such as Archaeopteryx) and theropod dinosaurs, concluding that the beak evolved when facial bones called the premaxilla fused and elongated. They also compared chicken and emu facial development with what occurs for alligators, turtles, and lizards. This comparison convinced them that dinosaur facial development was similar to that of today’s reptiles.

During development, cells produced two proteins—the growth factors dubbed Fgf8 and Lef1—in a large region of the chicken embryo’s face, but only in small patches in the reptile embryo’s face. Based on these insights, the researchers reasoned that changes in the expression of genes that encode these growth factors likely played a key role in snout-to-beak evolution. To test this idea, they implanted microscopic beads coated with chemicals that inhibit Fgf8 and Lef1 into the facial region of chicken embryos. The chicken embryos retained beaks externally, but the disruption in the growth factors led to snout-like internal skeletal structures similar to modern-day reptiles, theropods, and ancient birds.

The researchers still don’t know what specific genetic changes led to altered gene expression of the growth factors, nor do they believe they have provided the complete explanation for beaks evolution from snouts. But they do believe they have gained important insight into key changes that contributed to bird evolution and have demonstrated the power of reverse evolution as a strategy to understand life history from an evolutionary framework.

A Creation Model Approach to Bird Origins

Though this work and the case for bird evolution seem compelling, the reverse engineering studies’ results and the observations from the fossil record can be readily explained from a creation model perspective.³ Key to this explanation is the work of Sir Richard Owen, a preeminent biologist who preceded Darwin. In contemporary biology, scientists view shared features possessed by related organisms as evidence of common ancestry, but for Owen, shared anatomical features reflected an archetypical design that originated in the Mind of the First Cause. Therefore, the anatomical features shared by birds and theropods can be understood as reflecting common design, as opposed to common descent.

Though Owen’s ideas were sound, they were largely abandoned in favor of Darwin’s theory because many biologists preferred a mechanistic explanation for life’s history and the origin of biological systems. In fact, one could argue that Darwin’s theory is an adaptation of Owen’s archetype, replacing the canonical blueprint of the Creator’s Mind with a hypothetical common ancestor.

This archetypical approach to biology can account for the results of reverse evolution studies, such as converting a bird’s beak into a dinosaur snout. Accordingly, the researchers merely stumbled upon differences in the developmental program (production of the growth factors Fgf8 and Lef1) that affect variations in the archetype, yielding beaks in modern birds and snouts in modern reptiles, ancient birds, and dinosaurs.

From the standpoint of genetics, it’s possible the Creator selected a gene set that can be used to construct a wide range of organisms, organized around a single archetype, simply by varying gene expression. Think of an organism’s set of genes like a set of building blocks. Depending on the builder’s imagination, he or she can create a variety of structures with the same set of blocks. Likewise, a Creator could produce different organisms by deploying the same set of genes in different ways.

This is a common design principle. From a creation model standpoint, the Harvard-Yale researchers didn’t reverse the evolutionary process. They unwittingly reverse engineered a snout from a beak based on design principles.

Adding further credibility to a creation interpretation is the amount of knowledge and insight into the developmental process that was required to carry out these (and other) reverse evolution experiments. Equally impressive was the care required to alter the influence of the two growth factors. To transform a beak into a snout required coordinated, coherent, and precisely localized changes in growth factor levels. The researchers intelligently designed the conversion of the chicken’s beak into snout-like structures. So, is it reasonable to think that unguided, historically contingent processes could carry out such transformations when such small changes can have such profound effects on an organism’s anatomy? Because evolutionary mechanisms can only change gene expression patterns in a random, haphazard manner, the best such processes could achieve would be the generation of “monsters” with little hope of survival.

I would contend that the coherent, precisely coordinated genetic changes needed to generate one biological system from another bespeaks of the Creator’s handiwork as the explanation for life’s history.

An average healthy person can not only withstand an increase of positive gravity (up to 3–5 g’s—gravity forces) but also stand up without fainting. This ability mirrors the g-suits (or, antigravity suits) designed to help aviators stay conscious while flying and maneuvering at high velocities. The function’s integrated complexity and even its existence imply the hand of a purposeful Designer.

I love the action movie Top Gun. While capturing the immense delight of flying high-performance aircraft, the movie also highlights the magnitude of physiological stressors that military aviators encounter. When men and women first took to the skies, it was soon discovered that pilots would pass out when trying to recover from a steep dive. And with the advent of high-velocity jets, the physiological challenges pilots face became more pronounced.

During certain high-dynamic maneuvers, the increased positive gravity (positive g’s) impedes the flow of blood up the neck and to the brain, resulting in fainting (syncope) and probable death. Physicians and engineers combined efforts in the early 1940s to come up with a solution—and the g-suit was invented.

The g-suit is a garment that encloses an aviator’s legs and abdomen and is fitted with a system of internal air bladders. A hose connected to a pneumatic source is used to inflate the bladders, causing them to compress upon the legs and abdomen. The resulting constriction impedes arterial blood flow down the body. In other words, the constriction causes a “traffic jam” in the lower arterial system. This, in turn, artificially elevates the blood pressure in the upper arterial system, which helps to avoid syncope.

Of course, the g-suit system must be activated and deactivated selectively. For such, there is an accelerometer in the aircraft that senses the onset and magnitude of the g-forces and activates the pneumatic pump to counter the effects of blood pooling in the lower extremities. The sensor also detects the decrease and termination of the increased g-force and adjusts the pneumatic pump, accordingly, to allow blood to flow back into the pilot’s lower extremities.

Additionally, pilots are trained to perform certain acts that help to maintain the blood in the thorax and above by increasing the pressure in the abdomen. Typically, most humans can withstand 3–5 g’s, as anyone who has survived a great roller coaster ride can attest. Both the g-suit and the g-straining maneuver provide an increase in resistance.

A Biological G-Suit

Now we come to the crux of the issue. If you’ve ever picked up a water balloon by the knotted end, then you know that all the water just flops to the bottom. Humans are like water balloons. When we stand up, the arterial blood heading to the brain has to move uphill against gravity, and so suffers impedance. Simultaneously, the venous blood in the lower extremities trying to return to the heart is also impeded, causing a decreased supply of blood to the heart and, consequently, a decreased cardiac output. Together, these two phenomena may cause a decrease in blood supply to the brain, making an individual feel light-headed and weak (pre-syncope) or susceptible to losing consciousness (syncope). Obviously, the average healthy person rarely faints upon standing up. Why is that? Because we have a g-suit system built into our bodies!

Like the accelerometer in the aircraft that detects changing g-forces, humans have baroreceptors in the sinuses of the carotid arteries that detect changes in blood (hydraulic) pressure. If these receptors detect a sudden drop in pressure, they emit a signal to the brainstem via the glossopharengeal nerve. After several connections and pathways, some excitatory and some inhibitory, activity of the sympathetic branch of the autonomic nervous system increases and constricts the arteries (vasoconstriction) in the bilateral lower extremities.

And like the air bladders in a pilot’s g-suit, this constriction impedes the flow of arterial blood traveling down the body and forces the blood in the upper arterial system higher into the neck and head, thus avoiding syncope.¹ Sound familiar? Additionally, the heart is signaled to beat faster, thereby increasing cardiac output.

A Result of Evolution—or Design?

Such a complex integrated function presents a challenge to Darwinian evolution, which requires generating such a system in a piecemeal fashion. However, without the detectors (baroreceptors), the regulators (command and control), the integrators (neural communication systems), the actuators (the muscularized arteries and adjustable heart rate), and the necessity (maintaining consciousness/perfusion to the brain) all at the same time and in the same organism—and all of it working at a velocity suitable to the condition/stimulus (defined performance specifications)—then the function cannot work. To draw from biochemist Michael Behe, the human body’s g-suit function is “irreducibly complex.” But the evolutionary mystery only gets deeper.

Another enormous difficulty for the evolutionary paradigm is the fact that humans demonstrate a physiologic capacity (to tolerate up to 3–5 g’s) that is useful to us now, but which theoretically evolved without an environmental pressure to enable or “guide” natural selection. How then can strictly naturalistic processes account for the human organism evolving or adapting such a function to begin with? We do not experience high dynamic states except as an artifact of the modern Western industrial revolution. To have evolved this capacity seems impossible.

The reflective reader may ask, “Isn’t this function found in other mammals?” Yes, it is. But though some might argue that this “homologue” supports Darwinian evolution, it still suffers from the same problem of irreducible complexity. Moreover, we can argue that the correspondence between the human and the animal capacity to tolerate certain levels of g-forces demonstrates common design—a divine Engineer’s reuse of functional systems and designs—rather than common descent.

A simple solution to this conundrum posits design by an intentional Creator. After all, we know that the g-suit created for aviators required thought, planning, and design by human agents. Both the very existence of humanity’s built-in g-suit function and the function’s irreducible complexity make much better sense from a creation model perspective.

Dr. Eddy M. del Rio

Dr. Eddy M. del Rio received his MD from Saint Louis University in 2004, and currently serves as a practicing physician for the Veterans Health Administration in the greater Springfield, MO region.