Review by Casey Luskin
In his book Coming to Peace with Science, Point Loma Nazarene University biology professor Darrel R. Falk argues that shared non-functional (aka junk) DNA between humans, apes, and other species is evidence of their common ancestry. Falk in his book prefers to use the term “gibberish” rather than “junk.”
This is an extremely common argument from theistic evolutionists–Francis Collins made it in The Language of God (and Collins wrote the foreword to Dr. Falk’s book). Of course in 2010, we’re seeing more and more that such “junk” DNA arguments are factually weak because a myriad of functions have been discovered for non-coding DNA. As Helen Pearson put it in Nature a couple years ago, scientists are finding that “DNA previously written off as junk actually carries biological information.”1
Some who aren’t aware of recent developments in this field find “junk” DNA arguments for common ancestry persuasive, especially when they are made by highly credible individuals with Ph.D.s in biology — individuals like Dr. Falk, who unfortunately are known to dismiss criticisms by asserting that if you don’t have a Ph.D. in biology, then you’ve got no business commenting on biological origins. (These types of dismissals are utterly unpersuasive to laypersons who like think of themselves as reasonably intelligent people.)
The fact that “junk” DNA arguments for common ancestry are made by some highly-credible scientists doesn’t mean the arguments are good ones — it just shows how deeply these views have penetrated into the evolutionary scientific community. As I wrote with Logan Gage in response to Francis Collins, “That such an eminent geneticist as Collins would make so dubious an assumption, given its well-documented history of failure, makes clear how entrenched the ‘junk’ DNA mind-set is within the Darwinian scientific community.”
So after buying Dr. Falk’s book, did my suspicions turn out to be right or wrong?
What surprised me after reading Coming to Peace with Science wasn’t that Dr. Falk makes much the same fundamental mistakes as Francis Collins, arguing that shared “junk” DNA is evidence for common ancestry when it isn’t actually “junk.” What surprised me was the depth to which Dr. Falk’s book relies on the dubious “junk” DNA argument (he uses the word “gibberish” instead of “junk”)–even regarding types of DNA which we have long known are neither “junk” nor “gibberish.”
Dr. Falk identifies a variety of types of DNA which he claims are non-functional and thereby demonstrate our common ancestry with apes. He first focuses on pseudogenes, discussing a pseudogene found in primates wherein apes share an 11-base deletion. He argues this marked pseudogene provides evidence for common ancestry. To Dr. Falk’s credit, he notes the possibility of common design for this shared genetic feature, but he claims this is not a viable argument because “The gene has no function” and therefore it’s wrong to say that “the reason why God put a deletion into the ape lineage is because it would make the gene more ideally suited to carrying out its purpose.” (p. 188) He thus argues that such “marked pseudogenes [] leave telltale signs of common descent.” (p. 188)
He uses the same kind of reasoning when discussing introns, which he calls “meaningless gibberish.” (p. 189) Specifically, Dr. Falk writes, “A stretch of gibberish, when it occurs within a gene, is termed an intron” (p. 189), and “[g]enetic instructions contain stretches of gibberish called introns” (p. 190), because they are virus instructions that got inserted into a gene. He calls these allegedly non-functional stretches of DNA “scars” (p. 196) and argues that “organisms that share a specific ‘scarred’ section of DNA do so because of their shared ancestry.” (p. 196) He argues that shared introns, retrotransposons, and repetitive DNA (such as SINE elements) indicate common ancestry.
It’s worth highlighting just how much Dr. Falk relies upon the argument that introns are junk and are largely the result of viral DNA that got inserted (and thus “scarred”) our genome:
So Dr. Falk relies heavily upon the argument that introns are “gibberish” DNA that we share with other species at the same position, and this supposedly demonstrates common ancestry. The problem for the argument is that introns are not “gibberish,” but have important functions, such as regulating gene expression. And if there’s function, then a perfectly valid explanation for the functional genetic similarities we see is common design, not necessarily common descent. His argument that introns comprise functionless genetic “gibberish” is simply not correct.
Dr. Falk’s book was published in 2004. A stark admission of the false assumption that non-coding intronic DNA is useless genetic “gibberish” was highlighted in a 2003 article in Scientific American titled, “The Unseen Genome: Gems Among the Junk.”2
Though written from an evolutionary perspective, the article explains how “the introns within genes and the long stretches of intergenic DNA between genes … were immediately assumed to be evolutionary junk” and “long ago written off as irrelevant” by molecular biologists using neo-Darwinian assumptions. The article admits that “[t]hat assumption was too hasty” and quotes a molecular biologist explaining how this Darwinian-based dogma stifled research, calling the failure to recognize introns as functional possibly “one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.” As the article stated:
The article summarizes John Mattick’s view with these striking words: “The failure to recognize the importance of introns ‘may well go down as one of the biggest mistakes in the history of molecular biology.'” Yet that is what Dr. Falk does in Coming to Peace with Science by repeatedly calling introns “gibberish.”
Falk also cites shared retrotransposons such as SINE elements and other forms of repetitive DNA as evidence for common ancestry. But here, too, evidence of function has been found for SINE elements. In a 2005 paper in Biological Reviews of the Cambridge Philosophical Society, influential geneticist James Shapiro and pro-ID biologist Richard Sternberg conclude, “There are clear theoretical reasons and many well-documented examples which show that repetitive DNA is essential for genome function.”3
In 2002, Sternberg wrote a review article in Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences titled, “On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System” which documents a variety of known functional roles for repetitive DNA, including:
Indeed, Rick Sternberg has discussed some fascinating insights showing unexpected conserved patterns of SINE elements which not only could hint at their function, but entail similarities that are not due to common descent. So like introns, SINE elements should also not be written off as “gibberish.”
What about endogenous retroviruses or ERVs? Even these–also cited by Dr. Falk–have shown hints of function–or at the very least, what we presume is inserted viral DNA might actually be functional DNA in our genomes, and it was false evolutionary assumptions that made us think it was viral DNA. If you want to learn more about function for this type of DNA, two great commentaries are “‘Large Scale’ Function for Endogenous Retroviruses: Intelligent Design Prediction Fulfilled While Another Darwinist Argument Bites the Dust” and “When ‘Junk DNA’ Isn’t Junk: Farewell to a Darwinist Standard Response.”
None of this intends to single out Dr. Falk for these inaccuracies. Essentially, he’s repeating the consensus of his peers–a consensus of many in the evolutionary scientific community which just happens to be wrong.
Some of these peers bucked this consensus and predicted function for things like introns and other “junk” DNA–apparently at a cost. An insightful 2003 paper in Science talks about how the evolutionary assumption that repetitive DNA has no function has actually hindered the progress of cellular biology:
Not only is Falk’s argument for common descent misplaced, but by presuming that non-coding DNA had no function, his argument reflects an attitude that may have hindered the progress of biology and medicine to discover the true functions of these types of DNA.
Dr. Falk also argues that pseudogenes have “no function” (p. 188) and that shared genetic features in pseudogenes provide evidence for common ancestry. But again, the more we study “pseudogenes,” the more we’re finding that they can have function. The 2003 paper in Scientific American explains how evolutionists approach pseudogenes:
And a paper in Annual Review of Genetics from that same year argues that the more we study pseudogenes, the more we’re finding function:
Consistent with this, studies have found a variety of functions for various pseudogenes.7 Indeed, the very pseudogene Dr. Falk cites — the Serine hydroxymethyltransferase pseudogene, or SHMT-ps1 — reportedly shows “a high degree of sequence conservation in SHMT-ps1 among a number of nonhuman primates relative both to the human sequence and to each other.”8 Could that potentially imply function? Dr. Falk appears to be too hasty in his assumption that pseudogenes have “no function” and thereby show evidence for common ancestry.
The bottom line is that the “junk” or “gibberish” DNA paradigm is being consistently overturned as time goes on, and we now know that the vast majority of our DNA has function. As one news article said when reporting on the results of the ENCODE project in 2007:
Dr. Falk’s argument for common ancestry based upon the alleged “gibberish” nature of non-coding DNA — including introns — is based upon a premise that is being continually refuted by the data, and may even reflect how neo-Darwinism has led many scientists down a blind alley of research.
Coming to Peace with Science by Appealing to the Consensus
In his book Coming to Peace with Science, Darrel R. Falk makes many arguments for common descent and Darwinian evolution. Many of these arguments are evidence-based (some of this evidence is countered in above), but some of his most forceful arguments are not based upon evidence. They are based upon appeals to authority. Consider the following:
- “We must not be fooled into thinking that minor fluctuations in the data that are accepted as valid by virtually all geologists are relevant to this question.” (p. 70)
- “Christian and non-Christian nuclear physicists are virtually in 100 percent agreement that the decay rates could not have been significantly influenced by anything throughout earth’s history.” (p. 72)
- “Based on a great deal of rich, internally coherent data well beyond the scope of this book, there is no doubt in the minds of virtually all professional astronomers that the universe is ancient indeed.” (p. 80)
- “Virtually all biologists believe that with time, over hundreds of millennia, that other junction point for the jaw became primary and exclusive, while the quadrate-articular bones were freed up to become the famous incus/malleus of the middle ear.” (p. 1117)
- “Certainly the data of nuclear physics, geology and astrophysics lead virtually all individuals with doctorates in these disciplines, both Christian and non-Christian, to conclude that the earth is very old.” (p. 170)
- “Furthermore the fossil record leaves virtually all paleontologists to conclude that new life forms of increasing complexity have made a gradual appearance throughout earth’s history.” (p. 171)
- “The fact that this stretch of gibberish is found in the same gene, in the same place, but only in these related animals, suggests to virtually all geneticists that this retroposon entered the intron in one organism many years ago and has been copied faithfully in its new position ever since.” (p. 191)
- “It is clear to virtually all geneticists that many millions of years ago the SINE CHR-1 restroposon became inserted into the intron of one gene of an animal that was on lineage to whales, dolphins, hippos, and other even-toed ungulates.” (p. 192)
- “Since gibberish is inserted within the same intron (which is gibberish itself) at the same position in two different species from different prototypes, virtually all geneticists are convinced about the reason: they share common ancestors.” (p. 192)
- “Virtually all geneticists agree that the reason they share the same chromosome arrangement is because they all spring from the same great-great-great-great-…grandparent in which the event first took place.” (p. 198)
- “One of my primary goals in writing this book has been to lay before the church the reasons why almost all scientists (including Christian ones) believe in the gradual appearance of life on this earth. ” (p. 224)
- “Most scientists, however, see no evidence for a set of design rules.” (p. 14)
(all emphases added)
As Jary Richards points out, an appeal to a consensus hardly means the scientific ‘consensus’ is necessarily wrong and some wrongly challenge the consensus when it ought to be affirmed.” Thus, as regards to quotes 1, 2, 3, and 5, I would agree that the evidence is in favor of the consensus. To be clear, I agree because the evidence is in favor of the consensus. Not simply because it’s the “consensus.”
The consensus is never right because “virtually all” scientists believe something, but because the evidence supports it. Accepting the consensus because it’s the consensus is a self-referential argument. What matters is the data. And as I pointed out above, the view that introns are “gibberish” has been called by Scientific American “perhaps the biggest mistake in the history of molecular biology.” So as regards quotes 7, 8, and 9, there are reasons to doubt the purported consensus view of “virtually all” scientists that introns are “gibberish.” So sometimes the consensus can be wrong, but we have to look carefully at the evidence before we decide these matters.
The lesson to be learned here isn’t that the consensus is always wrong. Or that it’s always right. It’s that we need to think for ourselves, look at the evidence, and not simply believe something because someone tells us that we’d be in agreement with “virtually all” scientists.
References Cited:
[1.] Helen Pearson, “Codes and Enigmas,” Nature, Vol. 444:259-261 (Nov. 16, 2006).
[2.] W. Wayt Gibbs, “The Unseen Genome, Gems Among the Junk,” Scientific American (November, 2003).
[3.] James A. Shapiro, and Richard v. Sternberg, “Why repetitive DNA is essential to genome function,” Biol. Rev., Vol. 80:227-250 (2005).
[4.] Richard v. Sternberg, “On the Roles of Repetitive DNA Elements in the Context of a Unified Genomic-Epigenetic System,” Annals of the NY Academy of Science, Vol. 981:154-188 (2002).
[5.] Wojciech Makalowski, “Not Junk After All,” Science, Vol. 300(5623) (May 23, 2003) (emphasis added).
[6.] Evgeniy S. Balakirev, and Francisco J. Ayala, Pseudogenes, “Are They “Junk” or Functional DNA?,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 37:123-51 (2003) (emphasis added).
[7.] For examples of some papers that have found function or pseudogenes, see: D. Zheng and M. B. Gerstein, “The ambiguous boundary between genes and pseudogenes: the dead rise up, or do they?,” Trends in Genetics, Vol. 23(5):219-224 (2007); S. Hirotsune et al., “An expressed pseudogene regulates the messenger-RNA stability of its homologous coding gene,” Nature, Vol. 423:91-96 (May 1, 2003); O. H. Tam et al., “Pseudogene-derived small interfering RNAs regulate gene expression in mouse oocytes,” Nature, Vol. 453:534-538 (May 22, 2008); D. Pain et al., “Multiple Retropseudogenes from Pluripotent Cell-specific Gene Expression Indicates a Potential Signature for Novel Gene Identification,” The Journal of Biological Chemistry, Vol. 280(8):6265-6268 (February 25, 2005); J. Zhang et al., “NANOGP8 is a retrogene expressed in cancers,” FEBS Journal, Vol. 273:1723-1730 (2006).
[8.] Eric J. Devor, , Rebecca M. Dill-Devor, Harry J. Magee, Rafiq Waziri, “Serine hydroxymethyltransferase pseudogene, SHMT-ps1: A unique genetic marker of the order primates,” Journal of Experimental Zoology Part A: Comparative Experimental Biology, Vol. 282(1-2):150-156 (1998).
[9.] Rick Weiss, “Intricate Toiling Found In Nooks of DNA Once Believed to Stand Idle,” Washington Post (June 14, 2007; A01).