Elderly Man Gazing Fondly at His Date in McDonald’s Inspires Thousands of Romantics Online

Untitled 2

May, 2019

A simple moment of intimacy between an elderly man and his fast food date has melted the hearts of thousands of people across social media.

The heartwarming photo was captured by Al Oliver Reyes Alonzo as he was dining at a McDonald’s in the Philippines last week.

While he was eating his meal, Alonzo spotted an older man who was looking at his female companion with the sweetest expression of love and affection.

As the man leaned his head on his folded arms so he could gaze fondly at his date across the table, Alonzo snapped a photo of the exchange and posted it to Facebook.

The translated caption of the photo simply reads: “Even when we are old, I’d still look at you like this.”

Since publishing the photo to social media, it has been shared thousands of times. Some internet users have used it to pledge their own declarations of love towards their romantic partners; others have expressed their longing to one day experience the same look of love from another person.

Regardless, the picture is the sweetest example of how there can still be plenty of golden moments in your golden years.

Frog Choruses Sing Out a Song of Creation

Untitled 24
BY FAZALE RANA – JUNE 12, 2019

My last name, Rana, is Sanskrit in origin, referring to someone who descends from the Thar Ghar aristocracy. Living in Southern California means I don’t often meet Urdu-speaking people who would appreciate the regal heritage connected to my family name. But I do meet a lot of Spanish speakers. And when I introduce myself, I often see raised eyebrows and smiles.

In Spanish, Rana means frog.

My family has learned to embrace our family’s namesake. In fact, when our kids were little, my wife affectionately referred to our five children as ranitas—little frogs.

blog__inline--frog-choruses-sing-out-a-song-of-creation-1

Image: Five Ranitas. Image credit: Shutterstock

Our feelings about these cute and colorful amphibians aside, frogs are remarkable creatures. They engage in some fascinating behaviors. Take courtship, as an example. In many frog species, the males croak to attract the attention of females, with each frog species displaying its own distinct call.

Male frogs croak by filling their vocal sacs with air. This allows them to amplify their croaks for up to a mile away. Oftentimes, male frogs in the same vicinity will all croak together, forming a chorus.

blog__inline--frog-choruses-sing-out-a-song-of-creation-2

Image: Male Frog Croaking to Attract a Female. Image credit: Shutterstock

As it turns out, female frogs aren’t the only ones who respond to frog croaks.

A research team from Japan has spent a lot of time listening to and analyzing frog choruses with the hopes of understanding the mathematical structure of the sounds that frogs collectively make when they call out to females. Once they had the mathematical model in hand, the researchers discovered that they could use it to improve the efficiency of wireless data transfer systems.1

This work serves as one more example of scientists and engineers applying insights from biology to drive technology advances and breakthroughs. This approach to technology development (called biomimetics and bioinspiration)—exemplified by the impressive work of the Japanese researchers—has significance that extends beyond engineering. It can be used to make the case that a Creator must have played a role in the design and history of life by marshaling support for two distinct arguments for God’s existence:

Frog Choruses: A Cacophony or a Symphony?

Anyone who has spent time near a pond at night certainly knows the ruckus that an army of male frogs can make when each of them is vying for the attention of females.

All the male frogs living near the pond want to attract females to the same breeding site, but, in doing so, each individual also wants to attract females to his specific territory. Field observations indicate that, instead of engaging in a croaking free-for-all (with neighboring frogs trying to outperform one another), the army of frogs engages in a carefully orchestrated acoustical presentation. As a result, male frogs avoid call overlap with neighboring males on a short timescale, while synchronizing their croaks with the other frogs to produce a chorus on a longer timescale.

The frogs avoid call overlap by alternating between silence and croaking, coordinating with neighboring frogs so that when one frog rests, another croaks. This alternating back-and-forth makes it possible for each individual frog to be heard amid the chorus, and it also results in a symphonic chorus of frog croaks.

The Mathematical Structure of Frog Choruses

To dissect the mathematical structure of frog choruses, the research team placed three male Japanese tree frogs into individual mesh cages that were set along a straight line, with a two-foot separation between each cage. The researchers recorded the frog’s croaks using microphones placed by each cage.

They observed that all three frogs alternated their calls, forming a triphasic synchronization. One frog croaked continuously for a brief period of time and then would rest, while the other two frogs took their turn croaking and resting. The researchers determined that the rest breaks for the frogs were important because of the amount of energy it takes the frogs to produce a call.

All three frogs would synchronize the start and stop of their calls to produce a chorus followed by a period of silence. They discovered that the time between choruses varied quite a bit, without rhyme or reason, and was typically much longer than the chorus time. On the other hand, the croaking of each individual lasted for a predictable time duration that was followed immediately by the croaking of a neighboring frog.

By analyzing the acoustical data, the researchers developed a mathematical model to describe the croaking of individual frogs and the collective behavior of the frogs when they belted out a chorus of calls. Their model consisted of both deterministic and stochastic components.

Use of Frog Choruses for Managing Data Traffic

The researchers realized that the mathematical model they developed could be applied to control wireless sensor networks, such as those that make up the internet of things. These networks entail an array of sensor nodes that transmit data packets, delivering them to a gateway node by multi-hop communication, with data packets transmitted from sensor to sensor until it reaches the gate. During transmission, it is critical for the system to avoid the collision of data packets. It is also critical to regulate the overall energy consumption of the system, to avoid wasting valuable energy resources.

blog__inline--frog-choruses-sing-out-a-song-of-creation-3

Image: The Internet of Things Made Up of Wireless Sensors. Image credit: Shutterstock

Through simulation studies, the Japanese team demonstrated that the mathematical model inspired by frog choruses averted the collision of data packets in a wireless sensor array, maximized network connectivity, and enhanced efficiency of the array by minimizing power consumption. The researchers conclude, “This study highlights the unique dynamics of frog choruses over multiple time scales and also provides a novel bio-inspired technology.”2

As important as this work may be for inspiring new technologies, as a Christian, I find its real significance in the theological arena.

Frog Choruses and the Argument from Beauty

The grandeur of nature touches the very core of who we are—if we take the time to let it. But, as the work by the Japanese researchers demonstrates, the grandeur we see all around us in nature isn’t confined to what we perceive with our immediate senses. It exists in the underlying mathematical structure of nature. It is nothing short of amazing to think that such exquisite organization and orchestration characterizes frog choruses, so much so that it can inspire sophisticated data management techniques.

From my vantage point, the beauty and mathematical elegance of nature points to the reality of a Creator.

If God created the universe, then it is reasonable to expect it to be a beautiful universe, one that displays an even deeper underlying beauty in the mathematical structure that defines the universe itself and phenomena within the universe. Yet if the universe came into existence through mechanism alone, there isn’t any real reason to think it would display beauty. In other words, the beauty in the world around us signifies the divine.

Furthermore, if the universe originated through uncaused physical mechanisms, there is no reason to think that humans would possess an appreciation for beauty.

A quick survey of the scientific and popular literature highlights the challenge that the origin of our aesthetic sense creates for the evolutionary paradigm.3 Plainly put: evolutionary biologists have no real explanation for the origin of our aesthetic sense. To be clear, evolutionary biologists have posited explanations to account for the genesis of our capacity to appreciate beauty. But after examining these ideas, we walk away with the strong sense that they are not much more than “just-so stories,” lacking any real evidential support.

On the other hand, if human beings are made in God’s image, as Scripture teaches, we should be able to discern and appreciate the universe’s beauty, made by our Creator to reveal his glory and majesty.

Frog Choruses and the Converse Watchmaker Argument

The idea that biological designs—such as the courting behavior of male frogs—can inspire engineering and technology advances is also highly provocative for other reasons. First, it highlights just how remarkable and elegant the designs found throughout the living realm actually are.

I think that the elegance of these designs points to a Creator’s handiwork. It also makes possible a new argument for God’s existence—one I have named the converse Watchmaker argument. (For a detailed discussion, see my essay titled “The Inspirational Design of DNA” in the book Building Bridges.)

The argument can be stated like this:

  • If biological designs are the work of a Creator, then these systems should be so well-designed that they can serve as engineering models for inspiring the development of new technologies.
  • Indeed, this scenario plays out in the engineering discipline of biomimetics.
  • Therefore, it becomes reasonable to think that biological designs are the work of a Creator.

In fact, I will go one step further. Biomimetics and bioinspiration logically arise out of a creation model approach to biology. That designs in nature can be used to inspire engineering makes sense only if these designs arose from an intelligent Mind.

In fact, I will go one step further. Biomimetics and bioinspiration logically arise out of a creation model approach to biology. That designs in nature can be used to inspire engineering makes sense only if these designs arose from an intelligent Mind. The mathematical structure of frog choruses is yet another example of such bioinspiration.

Frogs really are amazing—and regal—creatures. Listening to a frog chorus can connect us to the beauty of the world around us. And it will one day help all of our electronic devices to connect together. And that’s certainly something to sing about.

Resources

Endnotes
  1. Ikkyu Aihara et al., “Mathematical Modelling and Application of Frog Choruses As an Autonomous Distributed Communication System,” Royal Society Open Science 6, no. 1 (January 2, 2019): 181117, doi:10.1098/rsos.181117.
  2. Aihara et al., “Mathematical Modelling and Application.”
  3. For example, see Ferris Jabr, “How Beauty is Making Scientists Rethink Evolution,” The New York Times Magazine, January 9, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/09/magazine/beauty-evolution-animal.html.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/06/12/frog-choruses-sing-out-a-song-of-creation

Why Would God Create a World with Parasites?

Untitled 20
BY FAZALE RANA – JUNE 5, 2019

A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to suppose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the sufferings of millions of lower animals throughout almost endless time? This very old argument from the existence of suffering against the existence of an intelligent first cause seems to me a strong one; whereas, as just remarked, the presence of much suffering agrees well with the view that all organic beings have been developed through variation and natural selection.1

—Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin

If God exists and if he is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good, why is there so much pain and suffering in the world? This conundrum keeps many skeptics and seekers from the Christian faith and even troubles some Christians.

Perhaps nothing epitomizes the problem of pain and suffering more than the cruelty observed in nature. Indeed, what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of animals?

Often, the pain and suffering animals experience is accompanied by unimaginable and seemingly unnecessary cruelty.

Take nematodes (roundworms) as an example. There are over 10,000 species of nematodes. Some are free-living. Others are parasitic. Nematode parasites infect humans, animals, plants, and insects, causing untold pain and suffering. But their typical life cycle in insects seems especially cruel.

Nematodes that parasitize insects usually are free-living in their adult form but infest their host in the juvenile stage. The infection begins when the juvenile form of the parasite enters into the insect host, usually through a body opening, such as the mouth or anus. Sometimes the juveniles drill through the insect’s cuticle.

Once inside the host, the juveniles release bacteria that infect and kill the host, liquefying its internal tissues. As long as the supply of host tissue holds out, the juveniles will live within the insect’s body, even reproducing. When the food supply runs out, the nematodes exit the insect and seek out another host.

blog__inline--why-would-god-create-a-world-with-parasites

Figure 1: An Entomopathogenic Nematode Juvenile. Image credit: Shutterstock

Why would God create a world with parasitism? Could God really be responsible for a world like the one we inhabit? Many skeptics would answer “no” and conclude that God must not exist.

A Christian Response to the Problem of Evil

One way to defend God’s existence and goodness in the face of animal pain and suffering is to posit that there just might be good reasons for God to create the world the way it is. Perhaps what we are quick to label as evil may actually serve a necessary function.

This perspective gains support based on some recent insights into the benefits that insect parasites impart to ecosystems. A research team from the University of Georgia (UGA) recently unearthed one example of the important role played by these parasites.2 These researchers demonstrated that nematode-infected horned passalus beetles (bess beetles) are more effective at breaking down dead logs in the forest than their parasite-free counterparts—and this difference benefits the ecosystem. Here’s how.

The Benefit Parasites Provide to the Ecosystem

The horned passalus lives in decaying logs. The beetles consume wood through a multistep process. After ingesting the wood, these insects excrete it in a partially digested form. The wood excrement becomes colonized by bacteria and fungi and then is later re-consumed by the beetle.

These insects can become infected by a nematode parasite (Chondronema passali). The parasite inhabits the abdominal cavity of the beetle (though not its gastrointestinal tract). When infected, the horned passalus can harbor thousands of individual nematodes.

To study the effect of this parasite on the horned passalus and the forest ecosystem inhabited by the insect, researchers collected 113 individuals from the woods near the UGA campus. They also collected pieces of wood from the logs bearing the beetles.

In the laboratory, they placed each of the beetles in separate containers that also contained pieces of wood. After three months, they discovered that the beetles infected with the nematode parasite processed 15 percent more wood than beetles that were parasite-free. Apparently, the beetles compensate for the nematode infection by consuming more food. One possible reason for the increased wood consumption may be due to the fact that the parasites draw away essential nutrients from the beetle host, requiring the insect to consume more food.

While it isn’t clear if the parasite infestation harms the beetle (infected beetles have reduced mobility and loss of motor function), it is clear that the infestation benefits the ecosystem. These beetles play a key role in breaking down dead logs and returning nutrients to the forest soil. By increasing the beetles’ wood consumption, the nematodes accelerate this process, benefiting the ecosystem’s overall health.

Cody Prouty, one of the project’s researchers, points out “that although the beetle and the nematode have a parasitic relationship, the ecosystem benefits from not only the beetle performing its function, but the parasite increasing the efficiency of the beetle. Over the course of a few years, the parasitized beetles could process many more logs than unparasitized beetles, and lead to an increase of organic matter in soils.”3

This study is not the first to discover benefits parasites impart to ecosystems. Parasites play a role in shaping ecosystem biodiversity and they intertwine with the food web. The researchers close their article this way: “Countering long-standing unpopular views of parasites is certainly challenging, but perhaps evidence like that presented here will be of use in this effort.”4

Such evidence does not “revolt our understanding,” as Darwin might suggest, but instead enhances our insights into the creation and helps counter the challenge of the problem of evil. Even creatures as gruesome as parasites can serve a beneficial purpose in creation and maybe could rightfully be understood as good.

Resources

Endnotes
  1. Charles Darwin, The Autobiography of Charles Darwin: 1809–1882 (New York: W. W. Norton, 1969), 90.
  2. Andrew K. Davis and Cody Prouty, “The Sicker the Better: Nematode-Infected Passalus Beetles Provide Enhanced Ecosystem Services,” Biology Letters 15, no. 5 (2019): 20180842, doi:10.1098/rsbl.2018.0842.
  3. University of Georgia, “Parasites Help Beetle Hosts Function More Effectively,” ScienceDaily (May 1, 2019), https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/05/190501131435.htm.
  4. Davis and Prouty,“The Sicker the Better,” 3.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/06/05/why-would-god-create-a-world-with-parasites

Biochemical Grammar Communicates the Case for Creation

Untitled 19
BY FAZALE RANA – MAY 29, 2019

As I get older, I find myself forgetting things—a lot. But, thanks to smartphone technology, I have learned how to manage my forgetfulness by using the “Notes” app on my iPhone.

blog__inline--biochemical-grammar-communicates-1

Figure 1: The Apple Notes app icon. Image credit: Wikipedia

This app makes it easy for me to:

  • Jot down ideas that suddenly come to me
  • List books I want to read and websites I want to visit
  • Make note of musical artists I want to check out
  • Record “to do” and grocery lists
  • Write down details I need to have at my fingertips when I travel
  • List new scientific discoveries with implications for the RTB creation model that I want to blog about, such as the recent discovery of a protein grammar calling attention to the elegant design of biochemical systems

And the list goes on. I will never forget, again!

On top of that, I can use the Notes app to categorize and organize all my notes and house them in a single location. Thus, I don’t have to manage scraps of paper that invariably wind up getting scattered all over the place—and often lost.

And, as a bonus, the Notes app anticipates the next word I am going to use even before I type it. I find myself relying on this feature more and more. It is much easier to select a word than type it out. In fact, the more I use this feature, the better the app becomes at anticipating the next word I want to type.

Recently, a team of bioinformaticists from the University of Alabama, Birmingham (UAB) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH) used the same algorithm the Notes app uses to anticipate word usage to study protein architectures.1 Their analysis reveals new insight into the structural features of proteins and also highlights the analogy between the information housed in these biomolecules and human language. This analogy contributes to the revitalized Watchmaker argument presented in my book The Cell’s Design.

N-Gram Language Modeling

The algorithm used by the Notes app to anticipate the next word the user will likely type is called n-gram language modeling. This algorithm determines the probability of a word being used based on the previous word (or words) typed. (If the probability is based on a single word, it is called a unigram probability. If the calculation is based on the previous two words, it is called a bigram probability, and so on.) This algorithm “trains” the Notes app so that the more I use it, the more reliable the calculated probabilities—and, hence, the better the word recommendations.

N-Gram Language Modeling and the Case for a Creator

To understand why the work of research team from UAB and NIH provides evidence for a Creator’s role in the origin and design of life, a brief review of protein structure is in order.

Protein Structure

Proteins are large complex molecules that play a key role in virtually all of the cell’s operations. Biochemists have long known that the three-dimensional structure of a protein dictates its function.

Because proteins are such large complex molecules, biochemists categorize protein structure into four different levels: primary, secondary, tertiary, and quaternary structures. A protein’s primary structure is the linear sequence of amino acids that make up each of its polypeptide chains.

The secondary structure refers to short-range three-dimensional arrangements of the polypeptide chain’s backbone arising from the interactions between chemical groups that make up its backbone. Three of the most common secondary structures are the random coil, alpha (α) helix, and beta (β) pleated sheet.

Tertiary structure describes the overall shape of the entire polypeptide chain and the location of each of its atoms in three-dimensional space. The structure and spatial orientation of the chemical groups that extend from the protein backbone are also part of the tertiary structure.

Quaternary structure arises when several individual polypeptide chains interact to form a functional protein complex.

 

blog__inline--biochemical-grammar-communicates-2

Figure 2: The four levels of protein structure. Image credit: Shutterstock

Protein Domains

Within the tertiary structure of proteins, biochemists have discovered compact, self-contained regions that fold independently. These three-dimensional regions of the protein’s structure are called domains. Some proteins consist of a single compact domain, but many proteins possess several domains. In effect, domains can be thought to be the fundamental units of a protein’s tertiary structure. Each domain possesses a unique biochemical function. Biochemists refer to the spatial arrangement of domains as a protein’s domain architecture.

Researchers have discovered several thousand distinct protein domains. Many of these domains recur in different proteins, with each protein’s tertiary structure comprised of a mix-and-match combination of protein domains. Biochemists have also learned that a relationship exists between the complexity of an organism and the number of unique domains found in its set of proteins and the number of multi-domain proteins encoded by its genome.

blog__inline--biochemical-grammar-communicates-3

Figure 3: Pyruvate kinase, an example of a protein with three domains. Image credit: Wikipedia

The Key Question in Protein Chemistry

As much progress as biochemists have made characterizing protein structure over the last several decades, they still lack a fundamental understanding of the relationship between primary structure (the amino acid sequence) and tertiary structure and, hence, protein function. In order to develop this insight, they need to determine the “rules” that dictate the way proteins fold. Treating proteins as information systems can help determine some of these rules.

Protein as Information Systems

Proteins are not only large, complex molecules but also information-harboring systems. The amino acid sequence that defines a protein’s primary structure is a type of information—biochemical information—with the individual amino acids analogous to the letters that make up an alphabet.

N-Gram Analysis of Proteins

To gain insight into the relationship between a protein’s primary structure and its tertiary structures, the researchers from UAB and NIH carried out an n-gram analysis on the 23 million protein domains found in the protein sets of 4,800 species found across all three domains of life.

These researchers point out that an individual amino acid in a protein’s primary structure doesn’t contain information just as an individual letter in an alphabet doesn’t harbor any meaning. In human language, the most basic unit that conveys meaning is a word. And, in proteins, the most basic unit that conveys biochemical meaning is a domain.

To decipher the “grammar” used by proteins, the researchers treated adjacent pairs of protein domains in the tertiary structure of each protein in the sample set as a bigram (similar to two words together). Surveying the proteins found in their data set of 4,800 species, they discovered that 95% of all the possible domain combinations don’t exist!

This finding is key. It indicates that there are, indeed, rules that dictate the way domains interact. In other words, just like certain word combinations never occur in human languages because of the rules of grammar, there appears to be a protein “grammar” that constrains the domain combinations in proteins. This insight implies that physicochemical constraints (which define protein grammar) dictate a protein’s tertiary structure, preventing 95% of conceivable domain-domain interactions.

Entropy of Protein Grammar

In thermodynamics, entropy is often used as a measure of the disorder of a system. Information theorists borrow the concept of entropy and use it to measure the information content of a system. For information theorists, the entropy of a system is indirectly proportional to the amount of information contained in a sequence of symbols. As the information content increases, the entropy of the sequence decreases, and vice versa. Using this concept, the UAB and NIH researchers calculated the entropy of the protein domain combinations.

In human language, the entropy increases as the vocabulary increases. This makes sense because, as the number of words increases in a language, the likelihood that random word combinations would harbor meaning decreases. In like manner, the research team discovered that the entropy of the protein grammar increases as the number of domains increases. (This increase in entropy likely reflects the physicochemical constraints—the protein grammar, if you will—on domain interactions.)

Human languages all carry the same amount of information. That is to say, they all display the same entropy content. Information theorists interpret this observation as an indication that a universal grammar undergirds all human languages. It is intriguing that the researchers discovered that the protein “languages” across prokaryotes and eukaryotes all display the same level of entropy and, consequently, the same information content. This relationship holds despite the diversity and differences in complexity of the organism in their data set. By analogy, this finding indicates that a universal grammar exists for proteins. Or to put it another way, the same set of physicochemical constraints dictate the way protein domains interact for all organisms.

At this point, the researchers don’t know what the grammatical rules are for proteins, but knowing that they exist paves the way for future studies. It also generates hope that one day biochemists might understand them and, in turn, use them to predict protein structure from amino acid sequences.

This study also illustrates how fruitful it can be to treat biochemical systems as information systems. The researchers conclude that “The similarities between natural languages and genomes are apparent when domains are treated as functional analogs of words in natural languages.”2

In my view, it is this relationship that points to a Creator’s role in the origin and design of life.

Protein Grammar and the Case for a Creator

As discussed in The Cell’s Design, the recognition that biochemical systems are information-based systems has interesting philosophical ramifications. Common, everyday experience teaches that information derives solely from the activity of human beings. So, by analogy, biochemical information systems, too, should come from a divine Mind. Or at least it is rational to hold that view.

But the case for a Creator strengthens when we recognize that it’s not merely the presence of information in biomolecules that contributes to this version of a revitalized Watchmaker analogy. Added vigor comes from the UAB and NIH researchers’ discovery that the mathematical structure of human languages and biochemical languages is identical.

Skeptics often dismiss the updated Watchmaker argument by arguing that biochemical information is not genuine information. Instead, they maintain that when scientists refer to biomolecules as harboring information, they are employing an illustrative analogy—a scientific metaphor—and nothing more. They accuse creationists and intelligent design proponents of misconstruing their use of analogical language to make the case for design.3

But the UAB and NIH scientists’ work questions the validity of this objection. Biochemical information has all of the properties of human language. It really is information, just like the information we conceive and use to communicate.

Is There a Biochemical Anthropic Principle?

This discovery also yields another interesting philosophical implication. It lends support to the existence of a biochemical anthropic principle. Discovery of a protein grammar means that there are physicochemical constraints on protein structure. It is remarkable to think that protein tertiary structures may be fundamentally dictated by the laws of nature, instead of being the outworking of an historically contingent evolutionary history. To put it differently, the discovery of a protein grammar reveals that the structure of biological systems may reflect some deep, underlying principles that arise from the very nature of the universe itself. And yet these structures are precisely the types of structures life needs to exist.

I interpret this “coincidence” as evidence that our universe has been designed for a purpose. And as a Christian, I find that notion to resonate powerfully with the idea that life manifests from an intelligent Agent—namely, God.

Resources to Dig Deeper

Endnotes
  1. Lijia Yu et al., “Grammar of Protein Domain Architectures,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 116, no. 9 (February 26, 2019): 3636–45, doi:10.1073/pnas.1814684116.
  2. Yu et al., 3636–45.
  3. For example, see Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, “Why Machine-Information Metaphors Are Bad for Science and Science Education,” Science and Education 20, no. 5–6 (May 2011): 453–71; doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9267-6.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/05/29/biochemical-grammar-communicates-the-case-for-creation

Why Would God Create a World Where Animals Eat Their Offspring?

Untitled 18
BY FAZALE RANA – MAY 22, 2019

What a book a Devil’s chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low and horridly cruel works of nature!

–Charles Darwin, “Letter to J. D. Hooker,” Darwin Correspondence Project

You may not have ever heard of him, but he played an important role in ushering in the Darwinian revolution in biology. His name was Asa Gray.

Gray (1810–1888) was a botanist at Harvard University. He was among the first scientists in the US to adopt Darwin’s theory of evolution. Asa Gray was also a devout Christian.

blog__inline--why-would-god-create-a-world-where-animals-eat-their-offspring-1

Asa Gray in 1864. Image credit: John Adams Whipple, Wikipedia

Gray was convinced that Darwin’s theory of evolution was sound. He was also convinced that nature displayed unmistakable evidence for design. For this reason, he reasoned that God must have used evolution as the means to create and, in doing so, Gray may have been the first person to espouse theistic evolution.

In his book Darwinia, Asa Gray presents a number of essays defending Darwin’s theory. Yet, he also expresses his deepest convictions that nature is filled with indicators of design. He attributed that design to a type of God-ordained, God-guided process. Gray argued that God is the source of all evolutionary change.

blog__inline--why-would-god-create-a-world-where-animals-eat-their-offspring-2

Gray and Darwin struck up a friendship and exchanged around 300 letters. In the midst of their correspondence, Gray asked Darwin if he thought it possible that God used evolution as the means to create. Darwin’s reply revealed that he wasn’t very impressed with this idea.

I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars, or that a cat should play with mice. Not believing this, I see no necessity in the belief that the eye was expressly designed. On the other hand I cannot anyhow be contented to view this wonderful universe & especially the nature of man, & to conclude that everything is the result of brute force. I am inclined to look at everything as resulting from designed laws, with the details, whether good or bad, left to the working out of what we may call chance. Not that this notion at all satisfies me. I feel most deeply that the whole subject is too profound for the human intellect. A dog might as well speculate on the mind of Newton. Let each man hope & believe what he can.1

Darwin could not embrace Gray’s theistic evolution because of the cruelty he saw in nature that seemingly causes untold pain and suffering in animals. Darwin—along with many skeptics today—couldn’t square a world characterized by that much suffering with the existence of a God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good.

Filial Cannibalism

The widespread occurrence of filial cannibalism (when animals eat their young or consume their eggs after laying them) and abandonment (leading to death) exemplify such cruelty in animals. It seems such a low and brutal feature of nature.

Why would God create animals that eat their offspring and abandon their young?

Is Cruelty in Nature Really Evil?

But what if there are good reasons for God to allow pain and suffering in the animal kingdom? I have written about good scientific reasons to think that a purpose exists for animal pain and suffering (see “Scientists Uncover a Good Purpose for Long-Lasting Pain in Animals” by Fazale Rana).

And, what if animal death is a necessary feature of nature? Other studies indicate that animal death promotes biodiversity and ecosystem stability (see “Of Weevils and Wasps: God’s Good Purpose in Animal Death” by Maureen Moser, and “Animal Death Prevents Ecological Meltdown” by Fazale Rana).

There also appears to be a reason for filial cannibalism and offspring abandonment, at least based on a study by researchers from Oxford University (UK) and the University of Tennessee.2 These researchers demonstrated that filial cannibalism and offspring abandonment comprise a form of parental care.

What? How is that conclusion possible?

It turns out that when animals eat their offspring or abandon their young, the reduction promotes the survival of the remaining offspring. To arrive at this conclusion, the researchers performed mathematical modeling of a generic egg-laying species. They discovered that when animals sacrificed a few of their young, the culling led to greater fitness for their offspring than when animals did not engage in filial cannibalism or egg abandonment.

These behaviors become important when animals lay too many eggs. In order to properly care for their eggs (protect, incubate, feed, and clean), animals confine egg-laying to a relatively small space. This practice leads to a high density of eggs. But this high density can have drawbacks, making the offspring more vulnerable to diseases and lack of sufficient food and oxygen. Filial cannibalism reduces the density, ensuring a greater chance of survival for those eggs that are left behind. So, ironically, when egg density is too high for the environmental conditions, more offspring survive when the parents consume some, rather than none, of the eggs.

So, why lay so many eggs in the first place?

In general, the more eggs that are laid, the greater the number of surviving offspring—assuming there are unlimited resources and no threats of disease. But it is difficult for animals to know how many eggs to lay because the environment is unpredictable and constantly changing. A better way to ensure reproductive fitness is to lay more eggs and remove some of them if the environment can’t sustain the egg density.

So, it appears as if there is a good reason for God to create animals that eat their young. In fact, you might even argue that filial cannibalism leads to a world with less cruelty and suffering than a world where filial cannibalism doesn’t exist at all. This feature of nature is consistent with the idea of an all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good God who has designed the creation for his good purposes.

Resources

Endnotes
  1. To Asa Gray 22 May [1860],” Darwin Correspondence Project, University of Cambridge, accessed May 15, 2019, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/DCP-LETT-2814.xml.
  2. Mackenzie E. Davenport, Michael B. Bansall, and Hope Klug, “Unconventional Care: Offspring Abandonment and Filial Cannibalism Can Function as Forms of Parental Care,” Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution 7 (April 17, 2019): 113, doi:10.3389/fevo.2019.00113.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/05/22/why-would-god-create-a-world-where-animals-eat-their-offspring

Competitive Endogenous RNA Hypothesis Supports the Case for Creation

Untitled 17
BY FAZALE RANA – MAY 15, 2019

When Francis Crick, codiscoverer of the DNA double helix, first conceived of molecular biology’s organizing principle in 1958, he dubbed it the central dogma. He soon came to regret the term. In his autobiographical account, What Mad Pursuit, Crick writes:

I called this idea the central dogma, for two reasons, I suspect. I had already used the obvious word hypothesis in the sequence hypothesis, and in addition I wanted to suggest that this new assumption was more central and more powerful….As it turned out, the use of the word dogma caused almost more trouble than it was worth. Many years later Jacques Monod pointed out to me that I did not appear to understand the correct use of the word dogma, which is a belief that cannot be doubted. I did apprehend this in a vague sort of way but since I thought that all religious beliefs were without foundation, I used the word the way I myself thought about it, not as most of the world does, and simply applied it to a grand hypothesis that, however plausible, had little direct experimental support.1

Even though Crick rued labeling his idea as “dogma,” the term seems to fit, all the connotations aside, because of its singular importance to molecular biology.

The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology

The central dogma of molecular biology describes the directional flow of information in the cell, which moves from DNA to RNA to proteins. Information can flow from DNA to DNA during DNA replication, from DNA to RNA during transcription, and from RNA back to DNA during reverse transcription. However, biochemical information can’t flow from proteins to either RNA or DNA.

blog__inline--competitive-endogenous-rna

Figure 1: The Central Dogma of Molecular Biology. Image credit: Shutterstock

Is There a New Dogma in Molecular Biology?

In my opinion as a biochemist, if there is an idea that has the potential to rival the significance of the central dogma, it just might be the competitive endogenous RNA (ceRNA) hypothesis. This newer model provides a comprehensive description of the role messenger RNA (mRNA) molecules play in regulating gene expression, thereby influencing the flow of information from DNA to proteins.

The ceRNA hypothesis also provides an elegant rationale for why the genomes of eukaryotic organisms contain pseudogenes (including unitary pseudogenes) and encode long noncoding RNA molecules. Additionally, it explains why duplicated pseudogenes resemble corresponding intact genes. In doing all this, the ceRNA hypothesis provides support for the RTB’s genomics model—which interprets the structure and activities associated with genomes from a creation or design standpoint. (An overview of the RTB genomics model can be found in the updated and expanded 2nd edition of Who Was Adam?)

The Competitive Endogenous RNA Hypothesis

I discuss the ceRNA hypothesis in a previous article. So, I’ll offer just a brief description here. According to the central dogma, the final step in the flow of biochemical information is the production of proteins at the ribosome, directed by the information housed in mRNA. Biochemists have discovered an elaborate mechanism that selectively degrades mRNA transcripts before they can reach this point. This degradation process controls gene expression by dictating the amount of protein produced.

Molecules called microRNAs bind to the mRNA’s 3′ untranslated region, which flags the transcript for destruction by RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC). A number of distinct microRNA species exist in the cell. Each microRNA species bind to specific sites in the 3′ untranslated region of mRNA transcripts. (These binding locations are called microRNA response elements or MREs.)

A network of genes shares the same set of MREs and, consequently, will bind to the same set of microRNAs. When one gene is transcribed, it will influence the expression of all the other genes in its network. And when one gene in the network becomes up-regulated (leading to increased transcription of that gene), the expression of all the genes in the network increases. Why? Because the increased level of that particular transcript exerts a “sponge effect” that consumes more of the microRNAs that would otherwise target other transcripts for degradation.

The Competitive Endogenous RNA Hypothesis and the Role of Junk DNA

The ceRNA hypothesis elegantly explains the functional utility of three classes of junk DNA: duplicated and unitary pseudogenes, plus long noncoding RNAs. As it turns out, the transcripts produced from these types of so-called junk DNA also harbor MREs. None of these transcripts codes for proteins yet they play an indispensable role in regulating gene expression. In fact, all three are much better suited for the role of molecular sponges precisely because they aren’t translated into proteins.

Of particular utility are duplicated pseudogenes due to their close structural resemblance to the corresponding coding genes. Duplicated pseudogenes not only exert a sponge effect but also serve as decoys that allow the transcripts of the intact genes to escape degradation and to be translated into proteins.

Is the Competitive Endogenous RNA Hypothesis Valid?

This question has generated a minor scientific controversy. Some studies provide experimental support for this idea while others question the physiological relevance of ceRNAs. In light of this debate, a team of researchers headed by investigators from Columbia University sought to validate this hypothesis on a large-scale.They discovered that ceRNA interactions can disrupt the expression of thousands of genes. The team concluded that “ceRNA regulation is the norm not the exception…and that ceRNA interactions have genome-wide effects on gene expression.”3

These researchers think that this insight sheds light on tumor biology because dysregulation of ceRNAs have been implicated in some cancers. Their work also has theological significance because it undermines one of the most significant challenges to design arguments and, in turn, can be marshaled in support of the RTB genomics model.

The Competitive Endogenous Hypothesis and the Case for a Creator

Evolutionary biologists have long maintained that identical (or nearly identical) junk DNA sequences (such as pseudogene sequences) found in corresponding locations in genomes of organisms that naturally cluster together (such as humans and the great apes) provide compelling evidence that these organisms must have evolved from a shared ancestor. This interpretation was compelling because junk DNA sequences seemed to be useless vestiges of evolutionary history.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents had little to offer by way of evidence for the intentional design of genomes. But research in recent years has revealed that virtually every class of junk DNA has function. It seems, then, that shared junk DNA sequences can be understood as shared designs, which is what the RTB genomics model predicts.

Additionally, the ceRNA hypothesis supports the RTB genomics even further. This hypothesis provides an elegant explanation for the widespread existence of pseudogenes in genomes and their structural similarity to intact genes.

Could it be that the idea of religious dogma affirming a Creator’s role in life’s design and history has merit?

Resources

Endnotes
  1. Francis Crick, What Mad Pursuit (New York: Basic Books, 1988), 109.
  2. Hua-Sheng Chiu et al., “High-Throughput Validation of ceRNA Regulatory Networks,” BMC Genomics 18 (2017): 418, doi:10.1186/s12864-017-3790-7.
  3. Chiu et al., 418.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/05/15/competitive-endogenous-rna-hypothesis-supports-the-case-for-creation

Pseudogene Discovery Pains Evolutionary Paradigm

Untitled 15
BY FAZALE RANA – MAY 8, 2019

It was one of the most painful experiences I ever had. A few years ago, I had two back-to-back bouts of kidney stones. I remember it as if it were yesterday. Man, did it hurt when I passed the stones! All I wanted was for the emergency room nurse to keep the Demerol coming.

blog__inline--pseudogene-discovery-pains-1

Figure 1: Schematic Depiction of Kidney Stones Moving through the Urinary Tract. Image Credit: Shutterstock

When all that misery was going down, I wished I was one of those rare individuals who doesn’t experience pain. There are some people who, due to genetic mutations, live pain-free lives. This condition is called hypoalgesia. (Of course, there is a serious downside to hypoalgesia. Pain lets us know when our body is hurt or sick. Because hypoalgesics can’t experience pain, they are prone to serious injury, etc.)

Biomedical researchers possess a keen interest in studying people with hypoalgesia. Identifying the mutations responsible for this genetic condition helps investigators understand the physiological processes that undergird the pain sensation. This insight then becomes indispensable to guiding efforts to develop new drugs and techniques to treat pain.

By studying the genetic profile of a 66-year-old woman who lived a lifetime with pain-free injuries, a research team from the UK recently discovered a novel genetic mutation that causes hypoalgesia.1 The mutation responsible for this patient’s hypoalgesia occurred in a pseudogene, a region of the genome considered nonfunctional “junk DNA.”

This discovery adds to the mounting evidence that shows junk DNA is functional. At this point, molecular geneticists have demonstrated that virtually every class of junk DNA has function. This notion undermines the best evidence for common descent and, hence, undermines an evolutionary interpretation of biology. More importantly, the discovery adds support for the competitive endogenous RNA hypothesis, which can be marshaled to support RTB’s genomics model. It is becoming more and more evident to me that genome structure and function reflect the handiwork of a Creator.

The Role of a Pseudogene in Mediating Hypoalgesia

To identify the genetic mutation responsible for the 66-year-old’s hypoalgesia, the research team scanned her DNA along with samples taken from her mother and two children. The team discovered two genetic changes: (1) mutations to the FAAH gene that reduced its expression, and (2) deletion of part of the FAAH pseudogene.

The FAAH gene encodes for a protein called fatty acid amide hydrolase (FAAH). This protein breaks down fatty acid amides. Some of these compounds interact with cannabinoid receptors. These receptors are located in the membranes of cells found in tissues throughout the body. They mediate pain sensation, among other things. When fatty acid amide concentrations become elevated in the circulatory system, it produces an analgesic effect.

Researchers found elevated fatty acid amide levels in the patient’s blood, consistent with reduced expression of the FAAH gene. It appears that both mutations are required for the complete hypoalgesia observed in the patient. The patient’s mother, daughter, and son all display only partial hypoalgesia. The mother and daughter have the same mutation in the FAAH gene but an intact FAAH pseudogene. The patient’s son is missing the FAAH pseudogene, but has a “normal” FAAH gene.

Based on the data, it looks like proper expression levels of the FAAH gene require an intact FAAH pseudogene. This is not the first time that biomedical researchers have observed the same effect. There are a number of gene-pseudogene pairs in which both must be intact and transcribed for the gene to be expressed properly. In 2011, researchers from Harvard University proposed that the competitive endogenous RNA hypothesis explains why transcribed pseudogenes are so important for gene expression.2

The Competitive Endogenous RNA Hypothesis

Biochemists and molecular biologists have long believed that the primary mechanism for regulating gene expression centered around controlling the frequency and amount of mRNA produced during transcription. For housekeeping genes, mRNA is produced continually, while for genes that specify situational proteins, it is produced as needed. Greater amounts of mRNA are produced for genes expressed at high levels and limited amounts for genes expressed at low levels.

Researchers long thought that once the mRNA was produced it would be translated into proteins, but recent discoveries indicate this is not the case. Instead, an elaborate mechanism exists that selectively degrades mRNA transcripts before they can be used to direct the protein production at the ribosome. This mechanism dictates the amount of protein produced by permitting or preventing mRNA from being translated. The selective degradation of mRNA also plays a role in gene expression, functioning in a complementary manner to the transcriptional control of gene expression.

Another class of RNA molecules, called microRNAs, mediates the selective degradation of mRNA. In the early 2000s, biochemists recognized that by binding to mRNA (in the 3′ untranslated region of the transcript), microRNAs play a crucial role in gene regulation. Through binding, microRNAs flag the mRNA for destruction by RNA-induced silencing complex (RISC).

blog__inline--pseudogene-discovery-pains-2

Figure 2: Schematic of the RNA-Induced Silencing Mechanism. Image Credit: Wikipedia

Various distinct microRNA species in the cell bind to specific sites in the 3′ untranslated region of mRNA transcripts. (These binding locations are called microRNA response elements.) The selective binding by the population of microRNAs explains the role that duplicated pseudogenes play in regulating gene expression.

The sequence similarity between the duplicated pseudogene and the corresponding “intact” gene means that the same microRNAs will bind to both mRNA transcripts. (It is interesting to note that most duplicated pseudogenes are transcribed.) When microRNAs bind to the transcript of the duplicated pseudogene, it allows the transcript of the “intact” gene to escape degradation. In other words, the transcript of the duplicated pseudogene is a decoy. The mRNA transcript can then be translated and, hence, the “intact” gene expressed.

It is not just “intact” and duplicated pseudogenes that harbor the same microRNA response elements. Other genes share the same set of microRNA response elements in the 3′ untranslated region of the transcripts and, consequently, will bind the same set of microRNAs. These genes form a network that, when transcribed, will influence the expression of all genes in the network. This relationship means that all the mRNA transcripts in the network can function as decoys. This recognition accounts for the functional utility of unitary pseudogenes.

One important consequence of this hypothesis is that mRNA has dual functions inside the cell. First, it encodes information needed to make proteins. Second, it helps regulate the expression of other transcripts that are part of its network.

Junk DNA and the Case for Creation

Evolutionary biologists have long maintained that identical (or nearly identical) pseudogene sequences found in corresponding locations in genomes of organisms that naturally group together (such as humans and the great apes) provide compelling evidence for shared ancestry. This interpretation was persuasive because molecular geneticists regarded pseudogenes as nonfunctional, junk DNA. Presumably, random biochemical events transformed functional DNA sequences (genes) into nonfunctional garbage.

Creationists and intelligent design proponents had little to offer by way of evidence for the intentional design of genomes. But all this changed with the discovery that virtually every class of junk DNA has function, including all three types of pseudogenes (processed, duplicated, and unitary).

If junk DNA is functional, then the sequences previously thought to show common descent could be understood as shared designs. The competitive endogenous RNA hypothesis supports this interpretation. This model provides an elegant rationale for the structural similarity between gene-pseudogene pairs and also makes sense of the widespread presence of unitary pseudogenes in genomes.

Of course, this insight also supports the RTB genomics model. And that sure feels good to me.

Resources

Endnotes
  1. Abdella M. Habib et al., “Microdeletion in a FAAH Pseudogene Identified in a Patient with High Anandamide Concentrations and Pain Insensitivity,” British Journal of Anaesthesia, advanced access publication, doi:10.1016/j.bja.2019.02.019.
  2. Ana C. Marques, Jennifer Tan, and Chris P. Ponting, “Wrangling for microRNAs Provokes Much Crosstalk,” Genome Biology 12, no. 11 (November 2011): 132, doi:10.1186/gb-2011-12-11-132; Leonardo Salmena et al., “A ceRNA Hypothesis: The Rosetta Stone of a Hidden RNA Language?”, Cell 146, no. 3 (August 5, 2011): 353–58, doi:10.1016/j.cell.2011.07.014.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/05/08/pseudogene-discovery-pains-evolutionary-paradigm

Why Mitochondria Make My List of Best Biological Designs

Untitled 14
BY FAZALE RANA – MAY 1, 2019

A few days ago, I ran across a BuzzFeed list that catalogs 24 of the most poorly designed things in our time. Some of the items that stood out from the list for me were:

  • serial-wired Christmas lights
  • economy airplane seats
  • clamshell packaging
  • juice cartons
  • motion sensor faucets
  • jewel CD packaging
  • umbrellas

What were people thinking when they designed these things? It’s difficult to argue with BuzzFeed’s list, though I bet you might add a few things of your own to their list of poor designs.

If biologists were to make a list of poorly designed things, many would probably include…everything in biology. Most life scientists are influenced by an evolutionary perspective. Thus, they view biological systems as inherently flawed vestiges cobbled together by a set of historically contingent mechanisms.

Yet as our understanding of biological systems improves, evidence shows that many “poorly designed” systems are actually exquisitely assembled. It also becomes evident that many biological designs reflect an impeccable logic that explains why these systems are the way they are. In other words, advances in biology reveal that it makes better sense to attribute biological systems to the work of a Mind, not to unguided evolution.

Based on recent insights by biochemist and origin-of-life researcher Nick Lane, I would add mitochondria to my list of well-designed biological systems. Lane argues that complex cells and, ultimately, multicellular organisms would be impossible if it weren’t for mitochondria.1(These organelles generate most of the ATP molecules used to power the operations of eukaryotic cells.) Toward this end, Lane has demonstrated that mitochondria’s properties are just-right for making complex eukaryotic cells possible. Without mitochondria, life would be limited to prokaryotic cells (bacteria and archaea).

To put it another way, Nick Lane has shown that prokaryotic cells could never evolve the complexity needed to form cells with complexity akin to the eukaryotic cells required for multicellular organisms. The reason has to do with bioenergetic constraints placed on prokaryotic cells. According to Lane, the advent of mitochondria allowed life to break free from these constraints, paving the way for complex life.

blog__inline--why-mitochondria-make-my-list-1

Figure 1: A Mitochondrion. Image credit: Shutterstock

Through Lane’s discovery, mitochondria reveal exquisite design and logical architecture and operations. Yet this is not necessarily what I (or many others) would have expected if mitochondria were the result of evolution. Rather, we’d expect biological systems to appear haphazard and purposeless, just good enough for the organism to survive and nothing more.

To understand why I (and many evolutionary biologists) would hold this view about mitochondria and eukaryotic cells (assuming that they were the product of evolutionary processes), it is necessary to review the current evolutionary explanation for their origins.

The Endosymbiont Hypothesis

Most biologists believe that the endosymbiont hypothesis is the best explanation for the origin of complex eukaryotic cells. This hypothesis states that complex cells originated when single-celled microbes formed symbiotic relationships. “Host” microbes (most likely archaea) engulfed other archaea and/or bacteria, which then existed inside the host as endosymbionts.

The presumption, then, is that organelles, including mitochondria, were once endosymbionts. Evolutionary biologists believe that, once engulfed, the endosymbionts took up permanent residency within the host cell and even grew and divided inside the host. Over time, the endosymbionts and the host became mutually interdependent. For example, the endosymbionts provided a metabolic benefit for the host cell, such as serving as a source of ATP. In turn, the host cell provided nutrients to the endosymbionts. 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.

Based on this scenario, there is no real rationale for the existence of mitochondria (and eukaryotic cells). They are the way they are because they just wound up that way.

But Nick Lane’s insights suggest otherwise.

Lane’s analysis identifies a deep-seated rationale that accounts for the features of mitochondria (and eukaryotic cells) related to their contribution to cellular bioenergetics. To understand why mitochondria and eukaryotic cells are the way they are, we first need to understand why prokaryotic cells can never evolve into large complex cells, a necessary step for the advent of complex multicellular organisms.

Bioenergetics Constraints on Prokaryotic Cells

Lane has discovered that bioenergetics constraints keep bacterial and archaeal cells trapped at their current size and complexity. Key to discovering this constraint is a metric Lane devised called Available Energy per Gene (AEG). It turns out that AEG in eukaryotic cells can be as much as 200,000 times larger than the AEG in prokaryotic cells. This extra energy allows eukaryotic cells to engage in a wide range of metabolic processes that support cellular complexity. Prokaryotic cells simply can’t afford such processes.

An average eukaryotic cell has between 20,000 to 40,000 genes; a typical bacterial cell has about 5,000 genes. Each gene encodes the information the cell’s machinery needs to make a distinct protein. And proteins are the workhorse molecules of the cell. More genes mean a more diverse suite of proteins, which means greater biochemical complexity.

So, what is so special about eukaryotic cells? Why don’t prokaryotic cells have the same AEG? Why do eukaryotic cells have an expanded repertoire of genes and prokaryotic cells don’t?

In short, the answer is: mitochondria.

On average, the volume of eukaryotic cells is about 15,000 times larger than that of prokaryotic cells. Eukaryotic cells’ larger size allows for their greater complexity. Lane estimates that for a prokaryotic cell to scale up to this volume, its radius would need to increase 25-fold and its surface area 625-fold.

Because the plasma membrane of bacteria is the site for ATP synthesis, increases in the surface area would allow the hypothetically enlarged bacteria to produce 625 times more ATP. But this increased ATP production doesn’t increase the AEG. Why is that?

The bacteria would have to produce 625 times more proteins to support the increased ATP production. Because the cell’s machinery must access the bacteria’s DNA to make these proteins, a single copy of the genome is insufficient to support all of the activity centered around the synthesis of that many proteins. In fact, Lane estimates that for bacteria to increase its ATP production 625-fold, it would require 625 copies of its genome. In other words, even though the bacteria increased in size, in effect, the AEG remains unchanged.

blog__inline--why-mitochondria-make-my-list-2

Figure 2: ATP Production at the Cell Membrane Surface. Image credit: Shutterstock

Things become more complicated when factoring in cell volume. When the surface area (and concomitant ATP production) increase by a factor of 625, the volume of the cell expands 15,000 times. To satisfy the demands of a larger cell, even more copies of the genome would be required, perhaps as many as 15,000. But energy production tops off at a 625-fold increase. This mismatch means that the AEG drops by 25 percent per gene. For a genome consisting of 5,000 genes, this drop means that a bacterium the size of a eukaryotic cell would have about 125,000 times less AEG than a typical eukaryotic cell and 200,000 times less AEG when compared to eukaryotes with genome sizes approaching 40,000 genes.

Bioenergetic Freedom for Eukaryotic Cells

Thanks to mitochondria, eukaryotic cells are free from the bioenergetic constraints that ensnare prokaryotic cells. Mitochondria generate the same amount of ATP as a bacterial cell. However, their genome consists of only 13 proteins, thus the organelle’s ATP demand is low. The net effect is that the mitochondria’s AEG skyrockets. Furthermore, mitochondrial membranes come equipped with an ATP transport protein that can pump the vast excess of ATP from the organelle interior into the cytoplasm for the eukaryotic cell to use.

To summarize, mitochondria’s small genome plus its prodigious ATP output are the keys to eukaryotic cells’ large AEG.

Of course, this raises a question: Why do mitochondria have genomes at all? Well, as it turns out, mitochondria need genomes for several reasons (which I’ve detailed in previous articles).

Other features of mitochondria are also essential for ATP production. For example, cardiolipinin the organelle’s inner membrane plays a role in stabilizing and organizing specific proteinsneeded for cellular energy production.

From a creation perspective it seems that if a Creator was going to design a eukaryotic cell from scratch, he would have to create an organelle just like a mitochondrion to provide the energy needed to sustain the cell’s complexity with a high AEG. Far from being an evolutionary “kludge job,” mitochondria appear to be an elegantly designed feature of eukaryotic cells with a just-right set of properties that allow for the cellular complexity needed to sustain complex multicellular life. It is eerie to think that unguided evolutionary events just happened to traverse the just-right evolutionary path to yield such an organelle.

As a Christian, I see the rationale that undergirds the design of mitochondria as the signature of the Creator’s handiwork in biology. I also view the anthropic coincidence associated with the origin of eukaryotic cells as reason to believe that life’s history has purpose and meaning, pointing toward the advent of complex life and humanity.

So, now you know why mitochondria make my list.

Resources

Endnotes
  1. Nick Lane, “Bioenergetic Constraints on the Evolution of Complex Life,” Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives in Biology 6, no. 5 (May 2014): a015982, doi:10.1101/cshperspect.a015982.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/05/01/why-mitochondria-make-my-list-of-best-biological-designs

Self-Assembly of Protein Machines: Evidence for Evolution or Creation?

Untitled 12
BY FAZALE RANA – APRIL 17, 2019

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’sanalogy 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.

blog__inline--self-assembly-of-protein-machines

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 Biochemical Watchmaker Argument

Challenges to the Biochemical Watchmaker Argument

Endnotes
  1. Massimo Pigliucci and Maarten Boudry, “Why Machine-Information Metaphors are Bad for Science and Science Education,” Science and Education 20, no. 5–6 (May 2011): 453–71; doi:10.1007/s11191-010-9267-6.
  2. For example, see Christoffer H. Norn and Ingemar André, “Computational Design of Protein Self-Assembly,” Current Opinion in Structural Biology 39 (August 2016): 39–45, doi:10.1016/j.sbi.2016.04.002.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/04/17/self-assembly-of-protein-machines-evidence-for-evolution-or-creation

Does Transhumanism Refute Human Exceptionalism? A Response to Peter Clarke

Untitled 11
BY FAZALE RANA – APRIL 3, 2019

I just finished binge-watching Altered Carbon. Based on the 2002 science fiction novel written by Richard K. Morgan, this Netflix original series is provocative, to say the least.

Altered Carbon takes place in the future, where humans can store their personalities as digital files in devices called stacks. These disc-like devices are implanted at the top of the spinal column. When people die, their stacks can be removed from their body (called sleeves) and stored indefinitely until they are re-sleeved—if and when another body becomes available to them.

In this world, people who possess extreme wealth can live indefinitely, without ever having to spend any time in storage. Referred to as Meths (after the biblical figure Methuselah, who lived 969 years), the wealthy have the financial resources to secure a continual supply of replacement bodies through cloning. Their wealth also affords them the means to back up their stacks once a day, storing the data in a remote location in case their stacks are destroyed. In effect, Meths use technology to attain a form of immortality.

Forthcoming Posthuman Reality?

The world of Altered Carbon is becoming a reality right before our eyes. Thanks to recent advances in biotechnology and bioengineering, the idea of using technology to help people live indefinitely no longer falls under the purview of science fiction. Emerging technologies such as CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing and brain-computer interfaces offer hope to people suffering from debilitating diseases and injuries. They can also be used for human enhancements—extending our physical, intellectual, and psychological capabilities beyond natural biological limits.

These futuristic possibilities give fuel to a movement known as transhumanism. Residing on the fringe of the academy and culture for several decades, the movement has gone mainstream in the ivory towers of the academy and on the street. Sociologist James Hughes describes the transhumanist vision this way in his book Citizen Cyborg:

“In the twenty-first century the convergence of artificial intelligence, nanotechnology and genetic engineering will allow human beings to achieve things previously imagined only in science fiction. Lifespans will extend well beyond a century. Our senses and cognition will be enhanced. We will gain control over our emotions and memory. We will merge with machines, and machines will become more like humans. These technologies will allow us to evolve into varieties of “posthumans” and usher us into a “transhuman” era and society. . . . Transhuman technologies, technologies that push the boundaries of humanism, can radically improve our quality of life, and . . . we have a fundamental right to use them to control our bodies and minds. But to ensure these benefits we need to democratically regulate these technologies and make them equally available in free societies.”1

blog__inline--does-transhumanism-refute-human-exceptionalism

Figure 1: The transhumanism symbol. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

In short, transhumanists want us to take control of our own evolution, transforming human beings into posthumans and in the process creating a utopian future that carves out a path to immortality.

Depending on one’s philosophical or religious perspective, transhumanists’ vision and the prospects of a posthuman reality can bring excitement or concern or a little bit of both. Should we pursue the use of technology to enhance ourselves, transcending the constraints of our biology? What role should these emerging biotechnologies play in shaping our future? What are the boundaries for developing and using these technologies? Should there be any boundaries?2

All of these questions revolve around a central question: Who are we as human beings?

Are Humans Exceptional?

Prior to the rising influence of transhumanism, the answer to this question followed along one of two lines. For people who hold to a Judeo-Christian worldview, human beings are exceptional, standing apart from all other creatures on the planet. Accordingly, our exceptional nature results from the image of God. As image bearers, human beings have infinite worth and value.

On the other hand, those influenced by the evolutionary paradigm maintain that human beings are nothing more than animals—differing in degree, not kind, from other creatures. In fact, many who hold this view of humanity find the notion of human exceptionalism repugnant. In their view, to elevate the value of human beings above that of other creatures constitutes speciesism and reflects an unjustifiable arrogance.

And now transhumanism enters into the fray. People on both sides of the controversy about human nature and identity argue that transhumanism brings an end to any notion about human exceptionalism, once and for all.

One is Peter Clarke. In an article published on the Areo website entitled “Transhumanism and the Death of Human Exceptionalism,” Clarke says:

“As a philosophical movement, transhumanism advocates for improving humanity through genetic modifications and technological augmentations, based upon the position that there is nothing particularly sacred about the human condition. It acknowledges up front that our bodies and minds are riddled with flaws that not only can but should be fixed. Even more radically, as the name implies, transhumanism embraces the potential of one day moving beyond the human condition, transitioning our sentience into more advanced forms of life, including genetically modified humans, superhuman cyborgs, and immortal digital intelligences.”3

On the other side of the aisle is Wesley J. Smith of the Discovery Institute. In his article “Transhumanist Bill of Wrongs,” Smith writes:

“Transhumanism would shatter human exceptionalism. The moral philosophy of the West holds that each human being is possessed of natural rights that adhere solely and merely because we are human. But transhumanists yearn to remake humanity in their own image—including as cyborgs, group personalities residing in the Internet Cloud, or AI-controlled machines. That requires denigrating natural man as unexceptional to justify our substantial deconstruction and redesign.”4

In other words, transhumanism highlights the notion that our bodies, minds, and personalities are inherently flawed and we have a moral imperative, proponents say, to correct these flaws. But this view denigrates humanity, opponents say, and with it the notion of human exceptionalism. For Clarke, this nonexceptional perspective is something to be celebrated. For Smith, transhumanism is of utmost concern and must be opposed.

Evidence of Exceptionalism

While I am sympathetic to Smith’s concern, I would take a differing perspective. I find that transhumanism provides one of the most powerful pieces of evidence for human exceptionalism—and along with it the image of God.

In my forthcoming book (coauthored with Ken Samples), Humans 2.0, I write:

“Ironically, progress in human enhancement technology and the prospects of a posthuman future serve as one of the most powerful arguments for human exceptionalism and, consequently, the image of God. Human beings are the only species that exists—or that has ever existed—that can create technologies to enhance our capabilities beyond our biological limits. We alone work toward effecting our own immortality, take control of evolution, and look to usher in a posthuman world. These possibilities stem from our unique and exceptional capacity to investigate and develop an understanding of nature (including human biology) through science and then turn that insight into technology.”5

Our ability to carry out the scientific enterprise and develop technology stems from four qualities that a growing number of anthropologists and primatologists think are unique to humans, including:

  • symbolism
  • open-ended generative capacity
  • theory of mind
  • our capacity to form complex social networks

From my perspective as a Christian, these qualities stand as scientific descriptors of the image of God.

As human beings, we effortlessly represent the world with discrete symbols. We denote abstract concepts with symbols. And our ability to represent the world symbolically has interesting consequences when coupled with our abilities to combine and recombine those symbols in a nearly infinite number of ways to create alternate possibilities.

Human capacity for symbolism manifests in the form of language, art, music, and even body ornamentation. And we desire to communicate the scenarios we construct in our minds with other human beings.

For anthropologists and primatologists who think that human beings differ in kind—not degree—from other animals, these qualities demarcate us from the great apes and Neanderthals. The separation becomes most apparent when we consider the remarkable technological advances we have made during our tenure as a species. Primatologist Thomas Suddendorf puts it this way:

“We reflect on and argue about our present situation, our history, and our destiny. We envision wonderful harmonious worlds as easily as we do dreadful tyrannies. Our powers are used for good as they are for bad, and we incessantly debate which is which. Our minds have spawned civilizations and technologies that have changed the face of the Earth, while our closest living animal relatives sit unobtrusively in their remaining forests. There appears to be a tremendous gap between human and animal minds.”6

Moreover, no convincing evidence exists that leads us to think that Neanderthals shared the qualities that make us exceptional. Neanderthals—who first appear in the fossil record around 250,000 to 200,000 years ago and disappear around 40,000 years ago—existed on Earth longer than modern humans have. Yet our technology has progressed exponentially, while Neanderthal technology remained largely static.

According to paleoanthropologist Ian Tattersall and linguist Noam Chomsky (and their coauthors):

“Our species was born in a technologically archaic context, and significantly, the tempo of change only began picking up after the point at which symbolic objects appeared. Evidently, a new potential for symbolic thought was born with our anatomically distinctive species, but it was only expressed after a necessary cultural stimulus had exerted itself. This stimulus was most plausibly the appearance of language. . . . Then, within a remarkably short space of time, art was invented, cities were born, and people had reached the moon.”7

In other words, the evolution of human technology signifies that there is something special—exceptional—about us as human beings. In this sense, transhumanism highlights our exceptional nature precisely because the prospects for controlling our own evolution stem from our ability to advance technology.

To be clear, transhumanism possesses an existential risk for humanity. Unquestioningly, it has the potential to strip human beings of dignity and worth. But, ironically, transhumanism is possible only because we are exceptional as human beings.

Responsibility as the Crown of Creation

Ultimately, our exceptional nature demands that we thoughtfully deliberate on how to use emerging biotechnologies to promote human flourishing, while ensuring that no human being is exploited or marginalized by these technologies. It also means that we must preserve our identity as human beings at all costs.

It is one thing to enjoy contemplating a posthuman future by binge-watching a sci-fi TV series. But, it is another thing altogether to live it out. May we be guided by ethical wisdom to live well.

Resources

Endnotes
  1. James Hughes, Citizen Cyborg: Why Democratic Societies Must Respond to the Redesigned Humans of the Future (Cambridge, MA: Westview Press, 2004), xii.
  2. Ken Samples and I take on these questions and more in our book Humans 2.0, due to be published in July of 2019.
  3. Peter Clarke, “Transhumanism and the Death of Human Exceptionalism,” Areo (March 6, 2019), https://areomagazine.com/2019/03/06/transhumanism-and-the-death-of-human-exceptionalism/.
  4. Wesley J. Smith,“Transhumanist Bill of Wrongs,” Discovery Institute (October 23, 2018), https://www.discovery.org/a/transhumanist-bill-of-wrongs/.
  5. Fazale Rana with Kenneth Samples, Humans 2.0: Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Perspectives on Transhumanism (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2019) in press.
  6. Thomas Suddendorf, The Gap: The Science of What Separates Us from Other Animals (New York: Basic Books, 2013), 2.
  7. Johan J. Bolhuis et al., “How Could Language Have Evolved?” PLoS Biology 12, no.8 (August 26, 2014): e1001934, doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001934.

Reprinted with permission by the author
Original article at:
https://www.reasons.org/explore/blogs/the-cells-design/read/the-cells-design/2019/04/03/does-transhumanism-refute-human-exceptionalism-a-response-to-peter-clarke