Can evolution by natural selection be responsible for new information/new genes?

Last month, Stephen C. Meyer, an advocate for the Intelligent Design movement*, debated with two other persons.  I did not see, hear, or read the debate, but Meyer has posted about it, and Dennis Venema, of BioLogos, has also done so.

*Intelligent design is, in simplest terms, the idea that God planned the universe. The Intelligent Design movement, (ID) however, also believes this, but furthermore believes that God did not plan that natural selection would be capable of generating new information or new genes. ID also believes that it is possible to prove God's planning, and, by inference, His occasional intervention in living systems, scientifically, and that Intelligent Design should be taught as an alternative to evolution by natural selection in the public schools of the US. Some ID adherents also believe in a young earth. Some do not. I am not an IDer, but I do believe in intelligent design.

What was the debate about? Well, one thing that the debate was about was the question posed by the title. If the answer to that question is definitely shown to be "no," then ID gains considerable credibility. Not only that, but evolution by natural selection should not be taught in public (or private) schools as an explanation for the vast diversity of living things. Meyer believes that the answer is, indeed, no. He is wrong.

Why is he wrong?

One reason is that Meyer, and others, cite a paper by Douglas Axe. The paper was published in what I take to be a scientific, peer-reviewed, journal. Axe claims to have shown that the probability of protein being able to perform a new function is vanishingly small. However, there are some problems with Axe's work, or at least his conclusions. Some of them are detailed here. To summarize, Axe wasn't working with a normal protein, but with a chosen small subset of normal proteins. That means that his estimate of probability is too small. How much too small is impossible to state, but enough that it seriously weakens his argument. More criticism of the validity of using Axe's work to show that the answer to the question of the title of this post should be answered with a "no" is here.

The problem with Meyer's answer (and that of others) to the question is not only reliance on Axe. There is also a misunderstanding of probability. See here for more on that.

Dennis Venema argues, here, that the antibody-producing mechanism of vertebrates is, in fact, able, by natural means, to generate new DNA sequences, which can help defend against organisms, or substances, which have newly arisen. If the antibody-producing mechanism can do that, this shows that the answer to the question above is, at least partly, "yes."

Finally, what is probably the strongest argument that the answer to the question posed is, in fact, "yes," is that new genes have arisen within the recent past. One example of this is a gene in some bacteria which codes for a protein that allows them to use nylon as a food. (Nylon is a synthetic fiber which did not occur at all until the twentieth century.) That gene has arisen since the production of nylon, and its release into the environment. 

Another example of a new gene arising, in the recent past, is discussed here.  This post, discusses some posts by Venema, which describe another example of functional genetic material arising, apparently through natural selection.

It appears that part of God's design was the mechanism of natural selection, which makes it possible for natural systems to come up with new means of coping with new or unique environmental conditions. To me, and others, that is at least as amazing as it would be if God had, as it were, stepped in to specially create such solutions. 

Thanks for reading!

Is a designer for genetic information necessary or proved?

In a recent post to the Biologos Forum, Randy Isaac, who is currently Executive Director of the American Scientific Affiliation, an organization about science, with members who are Christians, argues against a common claim of the Intelligent Design movement. That claim, particularly made by Stephen Meyer, is that genetic information is similar to computer instructions, and, therefore, that there must be a designer of genetic information, just as there is a designer for a set of computer instructions.

Isaac argues, I think persuasively, that the two types of information are fundamentally different. He writes:
The significance and meaning of computer code depends on the abstract, or symbolic, significance attributed to physical states of the computer by an intelligent agent. In sharp contrast, the significant functionality of the information of a living cell depends on physical survival and not on abstract significance. Hence, the information in a living cell can be selected for functionality by physical processes without an intelligent agent whereas computer code cannot.

Note that Isaac does not say that there is no such thing as a Designer. His claim is that Meyer has not demonstrated a proof of His existence.

Hebrews 11:3 says: By faith, we understand that the universe has been framed by the word of God, so that what is seen has not been made out of things which are visible. (WEB) This verse may be saying -- I'm not sure -- that scientific proof of God's existence is impossible.

Thanks for reading. Read Isaac.

Review of Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design

I read a review of Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design, which book is by Stephen C. Meyer, a Fellow of the Discovery Institute, the driving force behind the Intelligent Design (ID) movement.

The reviewer, like me, claims to be a Christian, and, like me, has problems with the Intelligent Design movement, as many other Christians do. The problem that the review, Darrel Falk, emphasizes in his review is the claim by the ID movement that ID is scientific, and is not religious. The review points out a number of serious problems with Meyer's science. In fact, there is little or no experimental evidence that points toward an intelligent designer, which, of course, is not the same thing as saying that science has disproved that there is a God -- it can't, and it hasn't.

Thanks for reading this blog during this and the four previous years, even if you have only glanced at it once.

Intelligent Design and Common Descent

The Panda's Thumb is an important anti-Intelligent Design blog. In a post, dated January 31st, they present evidence that some leading IDers are willing to accept the idea of common descent of different species.

The post provides links to publications of ID believers. Stephen C. Meyer is, indeed, an important ID theorist. He is one of the main experts consulted by Lee Strobel, in his Case for a Creator. He is a Senior Fellow of the Discovery Institute. On Jan 29th, the Dallas Morning News published an op-ed piece by Meyer, in which he said, among other things:

The theory does not challenge the idea of evolution defined as change over time, or even common ancestry, but it does dispute Darwin's idea that the cause of biological change is wholly blind and undirected.

Wow! There Meyer gets to the heart of the matter. The most serious problem with the teaching of evolution is the non-scientific claim that there is no purpose in the universe, or, in other words, that there is no God. This claim seldom, if ever, appears in textbooks, and some science teachers who do not love ID do not support this claim, but some outspoken scientists, and others, have made this claim, and, of course, Christians (and presumably others) must oppose it. It is a religious claim, and has no place in science classes or science teaching.

ID is not a monolithic organization slavishly addicted to a party line, so there are certainly persons who support ID who would disagree strongly with Meyer on this point, and do not believe that, say, whales and polar bears have a common ancestor.

Meyer also says something perhaps even more interesting:
Since intelligent design is a new theory, I oppose requiring students to learn about it with curriculum mandates. Nevertheless . . . teachers should be free (on a voluntary basis) to tell their students about new theories, provided these theories are based (as intelligent design is) on scientific evidence.

There are certainly many ID supporters who would disagree with the first sentence in the quote above. The recent court case in Pennsylvania, and some other court cases, have been over this very issue, namely mandating teaching about ID in public school science (and sometimes other) classes.

I do not agree with Meyer on all points. I'm not sure that the last clause of the previous quote is correct. But I do agree with him on two things: the central issue is not the age of the earth, or common descent, but purpose, and the teaching of ID should not be mandated in the public schools.

Because of the importance of this subject, and of Meyer's article, and the likelihood that the Dallas Morning News has a policy of removal of articles within a short period, I am posting this now, and will let it be my post for February 1st. I expect to post the next version of Sunspots on February 2nd, the day after the publication of the Christian Carnival for the week, which is a departure from my usual practice.

The article has also been posted by the Discovery Institute, as far as I can tell, without change. It will probably be available on-line there longer than from the newspaper.

Thanks for reading.