İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim.
.
İzlediğiniz için teşekkür ederim.
Today we are learning the language in which God created life.
We are gaining ever more awe for the complexity, the beauty, the wonder of God's most divine and sacred gift.
With this profound new knowledge, humankind is on the verge of gaining immense new power to heal.
Genome science will have a real impact on all of our lives, and even more on the lives of our children.
It will revolutionize the diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of most, if not all, human diseases.
Truly, President Clinton appreciated the significance of having the sequence for the human genome.
He even went so far as to describe the human genome sequence as the language God used to create life.
Yet the initial analysis of the human genome sequence indicated to many scientists that the human genome was anything but the product of a creator's handiwork.
Instead of being the language God used to create human life, it appeared to many scientists that the human genome was cobbled together over hundreds of millions of years by evolutionary processes,
with much of the human genome riddled with molecular fossils, vestiges of an evolutionary history.
Many scientists would argue that the human genome stands as the most powerful evidence for human evolution,
while at the same time indicating that God had nothing to do whatsoever with humanity's origin.
In the next few minutes, I'll explain why these scientists reached these conclusions,
but then I'm going to describe some recent insights into the structure and function of the human genome
that is radically changing our perspective on the human genetic blueprint
in a way that presents the genetic code of humanity as the handiwork of God.
Let's begin first by having a little background information on the structure of DNA.
This biomolecule consists of chain-like molecules known as polynucleotides.
Two polynucleotide chains align in an anti-parallel fashion to form a DNA molecule.
The two strands are arranged parallel to one another,
with the starting point of one strand in the polynucleotide duplex located next to the ending point of the other strand, and vice versa.
The paired polynucleotide chains resemble a ladder,
with the side groups extending from the backbone interacting with each other to form rungs.
The coupled polynucleotide chains twist around each other, forming the well-known DNA double helix.
The cell's machinery forms polynucleotide chains by linking together four different subunit molecules called nucleotides.
The four nucleotides used to build DNA chains are adenosine, guanosine, cytidine, and thymidine,
famously abbreviated A, G, C, and T, respectively.
The human genome consists of 3.2 billion genetic letters
that are distributed among 24 discrete DNA molecules.
These molecules interact with proteins to form complexes called chromosomes.
These structures become visible in the cell nucleus as the cell divides.
Each chromosome consists of a single DNA molecule that wraps around a series of globular protein complexes.
These wrapped complexes repeat to form a supermolecular structure that resembles a string of beads.
Biochemists call the beads nucleosomes.
The chain of nucleosomes further coil to form a structure called a solenoid.
The solenoid condenses to form higher-order structures that constitute the chromosome.
Between cell division events, the chromosome exists in an extended diffuse form that is not detectable.
Prior to and during cell division, the chromosome condenses to form its readily recognizable compact structures.
All the genetic material in the cell's nucleus is distributed among the chromosomes.
The number of chromosomes in each cell is characteristic of a particular species.
For example, the nucleus of each cell of a chimpanzee possesses 48 chromosomes,
and for humans, the nucleus of every cell possesses 46.
The human genome is comprised of 22 autosomes, numbered from 1 to 22 based on size,
with chromosome 1 being the longest and chromosome 22 being the shortest.
There are also two sex chromosomes dubbed X and Y.
Every cell in the human body has 23 pairs of chromosomes,
one set from the mother and one set from the father.
The set is made up of 22 autosomes and one sex chromosome, either X or Y.
One of the surprises about the human genome came shortly after the rough draft sequence was produced.
The initial analysis indicated that only about 20,000 genes are found in the human genome.
This was a far cry from the predicted number of at minimally 100,000 genes.
This meant that less than 2% of the human genome coded for proteins, the workhorse molecules of the cell.
Evolutionary biologists interpreted the rest of the human genome as junk DNA.
Evolutionary biologists argue that most of the human genome looks like it was derived from retroviral infections.
Also included in the human genome are non-functional genes dubbed pseudogenes,
along with other types of evolutionary debris.
At first glance, the human genome looks like a vast wasteland of junk.
And, of course, this begs the question,
why would a creator make a human genome with so much useless DNA?
In Psalm 8, one of my favorite passages in the Old Testament, David asks the question,
what is mankind that you are mindful of them, human beings that you care for them?
David answers his own question by remembering the Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 creation accounts for humanity's origin.
Given David's words, a human genome littered with garbage is not what one would expect if human beings are the crown of creation,
but it's exactly what one would predict if evolution cobbled together the human genome.
For evolutionary biologists, a high level of junk DNA in the human genome also provides resolution
to something called the C-value paradox, adding, presumably, to the case for evolution.
The C-value paradox traces its origin back to the late 1960s and early 1970s.
At that time, biochemists developed techniques to quantify the amount of DNA found in individual cells.
They used these techniques to measure the amount of DNA in different cell types comprising an organism.
For example, human beings have approximately 210 cell types that make up our bodies.
Biochemists were interested in the amount of DNA in each of these cell types.
For every organism studied, biochemists found that all the cells in their body contain the same amount of DNA.
They dubbed this the C-value, where C stands for constant.
The C-value refers to the constant amount of DNA found in each of an organism's cells.
At that time, biochemists thought that the amount of DNA should correspond to the complexity of the organism.
More complex organisms should have more DNA, and less complex organisms should have less DNA.
When biochemists plotted C-values for different organisms, they failed to discover any relationship between complexity and the quantity of DNA in an organism's cells.
The discovery of junk DNA resolved the C-value paradox.
Accordingly, most of an organism's genome consisted of junk DNA, which accumulated through random events.
As a result, the C-value varied from an organism to organism with no rhyme or reason.
In other words, the size of an organism's genome has no relationship to complexity.
It is just the vestiges of an unguided evolutionary history.
And again, this begs the question, why would an all-powerful, all-knowing God create genomes with more junk than functional DNA?
And even more problematic, why would organisms that naturally group together possess identical or nearly identical junk DNA sequences
at corresponding locations in their genomes?
On the surface, the explanation that seems to make the most sense is an evolutionary one.
Junk DNA sequences arose in the shared evolutionary ancestor and persisted in the genomes
as the different evolutionary lineages diverged from a common ancestor.
In other words, junk DNA sequences in our genome and the genomes of other organisms reflect our evolutionary history
and can be used to map evolutionary relationships.
Yet, over the course of a past decade, molecular biologists and geneticists have made discoveries
that are forcing us to rethink this evolutionary view of the human genome.
Bit by bit, researchers have discovered that most of the classes of junk DNA actually have function.
And of course, if junk DNA is functional, it undermines the case for evolution.
One could argue that these shared sequences of junk DNA that are actually functional,
that occur in corresponding locations in genomes, actually reflect common design, not common descent.
The case for design in the human genome virtually became stronger overnight thanks to the ENCODE project.
This project was initiated shortly after the human genome was sequenced.
It became immediately apparent that simply having the DNA sequence for the human genome was not enough.
There had to be some means to interpret the human genome.
Nobody knew how to read the 3.2 billion genetic letters.
We needed a Rosetta Stone for the human genome.
Hence, the ENCODE project was born.
Its goal to identify all the functional elements in the human genome.
ENCODE stands for the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements.
This project began in the early 2000s.
The pilot phase cost $55 million to tarry out.
The research consortium attempted to identify all the functional elements in 1% of the human genome.
The success with phase 1 led to phase 2.
Phase 2 cost $130 million and was completed in September of 2012.
Phase 3 is currently underway and the total cost for the ENCODE project will be about $300 million.
This is actually a bargain because it cost $3.2 billion to sequence the human genome.
So we'll be able to interpret the human genome for a mere tenth of the cost of actually sequencing the human genome.
The ENCODE project was big science come to biology.
The phase 2 project consisted of 440 scientists and 32 research groups around the world
who performed almost 1,700 experiments analyzing 147 human cell types generating 15 times 10 to the 12 bytes of data
and it required 300 years of supercomputer time to analyze the data.
The ENCODE consortium produced 40 publications distributed among some of the leading biology journals in the world.
Phase 3 of the ENCODE project will survey the remaining 63 cell types
and also look for functional DNA at different points in development and at different points in the cell cycle.
This project will take us a long way towards understanding fundamentally human biology and human uniqueness.
It will help us to understand disease processes better.
It will help us to develop genetic tools that will allow us to diagnose genetic disorders.
The insights coming from the ENCODE project also impact this creation evolution controversy that we've been talking about.
These results eliminate the best argument for evolution and eliminate the biggest challenge to biochemical design.
So what did ENCODE discover that was so important?
Well, these researchers performed six assays measuring transcription, the binding of transcription factors, histone binding,
modified histone binding, methylation, and three-dimensional interactions within the genome.
All of these processes play a key role in what's called gene expression.
It's one thing to know what genes are present in the genome.
It's another thing to know how and when those genes are used.
We can think of genes in the genome like being words in a dictionary.
To write a novel, one needs to use the words in the dictionary in a variety of combinations,
often using words more than one time.
Each novel uses words from the dictionary in a different way to produce pieces of literature that communicate different meanings.
The set of genes found in the human genome are like words in the dictionary.
These genes can be used to build cells in the human body.
with the cells functioning like novels.
The genes are used or expressed differently from cell to cell, accounting for each cell type's unique features.
Gene expression not only differs from cell to cell, it also changes throughout the course of the cell cycle
and during growth and development.
Each stage of the cell cycle, each stage of development represents a different novel that needs to be written.
And here is the remarkable piece of the ENCODE project.
It appears as if most of the DNA sequences found in the human genome are regulating gene expression needed to build
and then maintain the human organism.
Phase 2 of the ENCODE project reported that 80% of the human genome displays biochemical activity
that likely reflects biochemical function.
The ENCODE scientists expect that as phase 3 is completed, 80% of the functionality will turn into 100%.
Ed Young, who wrote in an article in Discover Magazine, said this,
and what's in the remaining 20%?
Possibly not junk either, according to you and Bernie.
It's likely that 80% will go to 100%, and Bernie serves as the head of the ENCODE project consortium.
In other words, the human genome doesn't appear to be a wasteland of junk.
It appears to be functional.
Most of the DNA sequences of the human genome play a role in making us human beings.
This insight stands as a radical revision of our view of the human genome.
It's not a wasteland of junk, but an elegant biochemical system that is far more complex than we initially imagined.
Well, how have biologists responded to the ENCODE results?
Within hours of the publication of the ENCODE results, evolutionary biologists began to decry the ENCODE project,
citing technical issues with the way the study was designed and the way the results were interpreted.
These technical complaints continue today, igniting what are called the junk DNA wars
between evolutionary biologists and genomic scientists.
Evolutionary biologists argue that if the results of the ENCODE project are correct,
then cornerstone ideas in the evolutionary theory, such as the C-value paradox, can't be correct.
On other hand, genomic scientists see value in the ENCODE results,
using them to understand the genetic basis for disease.
Evolutionary biologists have roundly criticized ENCODE scientists,
claiming them to be incompetent and decrying the design of the ENCODE assays.
Evolutionary biologists claim that if ENCODE is correct,
then key aspects of the evolutionary paradigm are in deep trouble.
But these critics are doing science backwards.
Instead of data being used to evaluate a theory,
the theory is being used to evaluate the data from the ENCODE project.
The character of these objections are not lost on objective members of the scientific community,
who have suggested that the real motivation for the criticisms of ENCODE
are philosophical, even theological in nature.
For example, two scientists, molecular biologists,
John Maddock and Marcel Dinger,
in an article published in the Hugo Journal, wrote these words.
There may be also another factor motivating Grar and other related articles,
which is suggested by the sources and selection of quotations
used at the beginning of the article,
as well as the use of the phrase evolution-free gospel in its title.
The argument of a largely non-functional genome
is invoked by some evolutionary theorists
in the debate against the proposition of intelligent design of life on Earth,
particularly with respect to the origin of humanity.
In essence, the argument posits that the presence of non-protein coding
or so-called junk DNA that comprises greater than 90% of the human genome
is evidence for the accumulation of evolutionary debris
by blind Darwinian evolution
and argues against intelligent design,
as an intelligent designer would presumably not fill
the human genetic instruction set with meaningless information.
This argument is threatened in the face of growing functional indices
of non-coding regions of the genome,
with the latter reciprocally used in support of the notion of intelligent design
and the challenge to the conception
that natural selection accounts for the existence and complexity of organisms.
John Maddock and Marcel Dinger, who wrote these words,
are not creationists.
They're not intelligent design proponents.
Our design of the human genome is in its infancy.
Forced by their commitment to the evolutionary paradigm,
many biologists see genomes as cobbled-together product of evolutionary history.
But the more that we learn about the structure and the function of genomes,
the more elegant and sophisticated they appear to be,
and the more reasons to think that the genomes are the handiwork of our creator.
I would like to conclude with the words of Eric Green,
the director of the National Human Genome Research Institute.
During the early debates about the human genome project,
researchers had predicted that only a few percent of the human genome sequence
encoded proteins that were courses of the cell,
and the rest was junk.
We now know that this conclusion was wrong.
ENCODE has revealed that most of the human genome
is involved in the complex molecular choreography required
for converting genetic information into living cells and tissues.
In light of the data coming from the ENCODE project,
as a Christian, I feel justified in viewing the human genome
and hence human beings as a product of a creator's handiwork.
In Psalm 139, David sings a song of praise to the creator,
summarizing the latest insights from the ENCODE project well,
when he declares,
I praise you because I'm fearfully and wonderfully made.
Your works are wonderful.
I know them full well.
Thank you.