Does THIS argument refute Special Creation? Dismantling evidence for Evolution!
45#creation #evolution #christianity #bible #science #genetics #apologetics #debate
Apologists of common descent argue for their viewpoint by looking to homologous patterns in the biological world. This applies to both organismal structure and genetic content. Homology is largely agnostic to the overall origins debate. The common design model can easily account for homologous patterns in the biological world, and this goes for similarity in both anatomy and genes. Human engineers design in homologous patterns. Therefore, we would expect God to do the same. Biological organisms perform many of the same functions. This means organisms are going to need similar DNA sequences and genetic content to code for the proteins that make up the bodies of living organisms.
Defenders of evolution will frequently concede this point. They will agree that this kind of homology is agnostic to the question of ancestry. Rather, they will look to what they call homology in sequences of DNA they believe are junk and represent evolutionary leftovers (functionless DNA, pseudogenes, ERVs, Alu sequences, etc.). The important question to ask is: do these genomic sequences and interesting DNA elements really represent evolutionary leftovers? The answer is no, and I'll explain why by referring to a previous post I wrote debunking the concept of junk DNA:
There exists powerful evidence for genome-wide functionality. The ENCODE project (and subsequent projects) has revealed that at least 80% of the genome is active to some extent (biochemical activity). We have also learned that about 60% of the genome is transcribed into RNA. These findings were a surprise to those in the evolutionary camp that expect the human genome to be a reflection of evolutionary history. If common descent were true, we should be finding genomes of junk, and evolutionary leftovers. But this is not what we find.
Militant evolutionists argue that the greater majority of this activity is simply spurious or noise. This argument is easily refuted. Transcription is an energy and resource intensive process. Every time a single nucleotide as added to a growing RNA chain, the cell is utilizing energy. This would be incredibly wasteful of energy and resources if the activity taking place in the genome was simply noise. The large amount of transcripts produced would clutter up the interior of the cell if they were not involved in important operational roles.
If guardians of common descent were correct on this matter, and most of the genome was non-functional (many evolutionary scientists argue the genome is only 10% functional!), natural selection should have been able to weed out a lot of this junk over time. There should also exist mechanisms to suppress this activity (if the activity were merely spurious). Transcribing a large portion of the genome for non-functional reasons should be minimized. This tells us that the transcription, and activity, is beneficial, and not mere noise. This would be akin to buying new clothes weekly and stuffing it into your dresser without ever taking old clothes out to throw out or give away. Your dresser would quickly become a mess. And you would have no choice but to remove older clothes to make for more efficient living.
Transcription factors are proteins that regulate the transcription of genes (copying into RNA). These amazingly designed proteins ensure that the right genes are being expressed in the right cells of the body, and at the right time. If we find high levels of non-specific binding in the genome, you will be titrating out transcription factors. This essentially means the cellular processes won't be able to get the transcription binding that is necessary. Random binding will gum up the operations. This would also go against genomic efficiency. Most of the binding in the genome (which is a lot) must therefore be serving a purpose or else cellular operations would be incredibly messy. The random binding of transcription factors would muck up the systems of the cell. The genome would be a disorganized mess. All of this would create what's called an interference problem. There are limited transcription factor copies that can be produced. If transcription factors are only binding randomly (noise) to various sites in the genome, there isn't going to be enough transcription factors available to actually do the type of binding that is important for healthy cell processes.
*** For the rest of this post, see the pinned comment in the comment section of this video.