The Protein Clock*
HALE SPARKS
The University Explorer
The University of California
Additional Comment by J. W. Haas, Jr., Duane T. Gish, and Jerry D. Albert
From: JASA 23 (September 1971): 123-127.
There's a kind of clock, now, that tells us when man first parted company with his fellow primates, the anthropoid apes. According to the clock, that happened some four to five million years ago.
*University
Explorer Broadcast 2110, April 5. 1970, over the CBS Radio Network produced by
the University of California.
Branch-off From the Apes
Although anthropologists have taught us a great deal about ourselves-the earth
creatures known as human beings-the fact is that we still know
remarkably little
concerning our own immediate ancestry. By "immediate" in this case I
mean going hack to the time when our ancestors first parted company
with the apes
and began that rather spectacular hominid march leading to-well, leading to the
possibility of making reflections such as this, regarding ancestry.
Surprisingly
enough, exactly when man started his branch-off from the apes continues to be
a matter of much argument. Some believe that man, chimpanzee, gorilla
and monkey
all descended from the same common ancestor that roamed the wilds of Africa up
to around 30,000,000 years ago; others contend that a common ancestry is more
recent, 15,000,000 years perhaps; but the truly radical thinkers, of whom there
are a gradually increasing number, say that man and Old World apes started not
oil their separate ways a mere 4 to 5,000,000 years ago, and if this turns out
to he true it will profoundly influence our thinking about ourselves.
Protein Evolution
What gradually seems to he weighing in favor of the radicals is the possibility
of putting a "clock" to our molecular past and present, in order to
prove the time of divergence of man and ape. The timepiece in
question is called
the Protein Clock by its two young inventors, Allan Wilson and Vincent Sarich,
whose scientific collaboration at the University of California in
Berkeley brings
together the departments of biochemistry and anthropology. Out of this fusion
of disciplines has come the creation of a workable timepiece. It's based upon
the fact of regular mutation in protein evolution. This timepiece may help us
resolve crucial questions not only of our own past but of all other
living species
as well.
In summarizing the human puzzle, Dr. Wilson told me this:
"Speaking now just
of man, there's that point of view holding that man's no closer in time to apes
than he is to monkeys-with all three lineages separating about 30,000,000 years
ago. And there's the alternative view which says the close anatomical reemblances are due to a recent common ancestry. Now this view is what
the molecular
data fully support; in fact, they push the relationship even closer than anyone
has ever proposed before."
Confidence in the latter theory comes from the fact that scientists now have a
pretty good idea of how proteins evolve. They know, in other words,
what the units
of change are; and they can test the question of whether or not proteins evolve
in a regular fashion. As a matter of fact, they can count the number
of mutations
or changes that have occurred. This is something that can't he done merely by
comparing anatomy. In other words, by looking only at anatomy, scientists have
no idea how many mutational events were required, for example, to
cause a chimpanzee-like
creature to lose his hair, or develop a big brain, or walk on two legs. They've
no idea of the quantitative basis of the difference. But with proteins they do,
and they can actually count the number of mutational events that have
occurred.
So there's now a measure which is applicable to all species of living things,
the measure of bow much change has taken place in the given microbe or plant or
animal over the ages.
This time piece may help us resolve crucial questions not only of our own past but of all other living species as well.
Hemoglobin Changes
For example, consider this question: has the hemoglobin in a human
being changed
as much in its history as the hemoglobin in a monkey? Wilson and Sarieh point
out that, in fact, it has. They say that if you look at a Rhesus monkey and you
look at man in their respective hemoglobin structures, you see that
man and monkey
have had exactly the same number of changes since they separated from
one another,
but the structure of their hemoglobin is different. But when you
compare the hemoglobin
of man and chimpanzee, you get an entirely different story. Since the time when
mail and chimp separated from one another, there have been no changes
in the hemoglobin
structure. Furthermore, man and chimp hemoglobin are
structurally identical.
Thus we see a pattern of regularity in protein evolution; and we see also that
in one line (man and chimp) very little change has occurred. Hence,
the conclusion:
this must reflect a short time scale since the existence of a common
ancestor.
But the hemoglobin comparison is just one part of the mounting
molecular evidence.
More than two years ago Wilson and Sarich had already noted that if you look at
the albumins in the blood of man and chimp you see regularities and very little
difference. And since that time researchers the world over have found the same
to be true of other protein structures of the two species. "No matter what
you look at," says
Sarich, "there's nothing in the molecular evidence indicating
any significant
degree of divergence between man and chimpanzee."
History of the "Clock"
Such is the remarkable "time-telling" of the evolutionary clock-the
idea for which, by the way, goes hack a lot further in scientific history than
you might imagine. Actually, back in 1902, it was an English researcher named
Nuttall doing very crude protein comparisons, who first suggested that someone
might measure the distance between species by just taking his approach a little
further. No one took him up on this, though, until about the beginning of the
last
decade (1960). Then it was that Linus Pauling and his associate, Emil
Zuckerkandel,
first proposed (rather lightheartedly) that it looked as though proteins were
behaving like evolutionary clocks. However, the evidence for such
talk was still
very fragmentary. Since then, many key pieces have fallen into place, and the
picture now looks like this:
Proteins-such as hemoglobin, albumin, insulin, and so on-are composed of long
chains of amino acids, of which there are around 20 types. The
sequence of amino
acids in a given protein is a characteristic of the species; and each protein
sequence is controlled by a single gene (which means there's a gene
for hemoglobin,
for albumin, for insulin, a gene for every pro
tein).
The reconstruction of human history is pretty narrowly circumscribed, and the room for speculation markedly limited.
Now a gene, in turn, is composed of a long chain of nucleotides, known
as DNA. When a mutation occurs in the DNA, this generally results in
a "nueleotide
substitution event," as it's called. Let's say, for example,
that one nucleotide,
at position 10 in the DNA sequence, is replaced by another
nucleotide; that generally
will result in a single amino acid change
in the protein that's made by that particular gene.
Thus, at a particular point in the protein you have a replacement of
a "normal'
amino acid by a "different" one-a mutation in the protein.
Thus by comparing
the proteins of different species scientists are in essence comparing
their genes,
and counting the number of mutational differences that have occurred since they
had a common ancestor.
"Neutral" Mutations
Now, much to the surprise of most evolutionary biologists, it's been found that
the rates of change, the rates of incorporation of mutations into
proteins, seem
to be nearly constant over evolutionary time. And this raises the possibility
of dating the divergence of species. It also raises questions about
the mechanism
of evolution, In Dr. Wilson's word, "We're led to conclude that
besides normal
Darwinian evolution there's a phenomenon of the spread of so-called 'neutral'
mutations, which represent changes that have neither a detrimental
nor a beneficial
effect on the function of the organism; and that Natural Selection,
which is the
guiding agent in Darwinian evolution, can do nothing to stop these
'neutral' mutations.
They spread at a constant rate, and are responsible for the
phenomenon we've called
the Protein Cluck."
This achievement of the two Berkeley scientists recently inspired the following
editorial in an Austin, Texas, newspaper: "We're told that man
and the apes
may not be nearly as far apart as has been thought. Studies conducted
at the University
of California at Berkeley suggest that the time of divergence by man
and ape from
the common ancestor they're supposed
to have shared occurred only 5,000,000 years ago, and not the 30,000,000 held
by some scientists. Of course, humans actually should not resent too
deeply this
more intimate eousinslop to the ape, for the closer the scientists get man to
the trees, the easier it should be to explain why he acts the way he
does."
The Narrowing Cap
Dr. Sarich observed that this was an excellent point, because to find out the
whys and wherefores of behavior it's helpful to know what kind of
animal we have
to start with to get where we are today. And the close time divergence of man
and chimp gives us a much clearer idea about our beginnings. It
narrows the gap,
as it were, between the time when our species branched off from the
apes and the
start of the human fossil record-now dated at close to 3,000,000 years.
So through the study of bones and teeth we can go hack some 3,000,000 years..
And through their molecular studies, Wilson and Sarich are suggesting that only
4 or 5,1100,000 years ago there was still in existence a common
ancestor of man,
chimp and gorillaa form that was going to be ancestral to all three.
"So the new finding doesn't leave you too much room to play
around with,"
comments Dr. Sarich. "You have the three living forms today. The history
of one of them goes back (in the fossil record) a long way, in terms
of the total
time you have to work with. So the kind of animal that wouldve been a
common ancestor
of all three is pretty well determined." The looks of such a fellow, if we
could see him running around today, would hardly be surprising. Fled
be chimpanzee-like
in appearance. "I should think he'd be similar enough to the
modern chimp,"
says Dr. Sarich,
"so that at first glance you'd say, 'That's a chimp!'"
Summary
Thus, to summarize, the Wilson-Sarich thesis: you start with something like a
chimpanzee, which your molecular clock puts at 4 or 5,000,000 years
ago. You then
jump the gap to the first clearly' human fossils, at about 3,000,000
years. This
leaves relatively little intervening time to account for. Thus the
reconstruction
of human history is pretty narrowly circumscribed, and the room for speculation
markedly limited. This narrowing-of-the-gap in human evolution may well be the
most important contribution of the Berkeley researchers.
Narrow as this gap now appears, it's expected that it soon will be bridged by
new fossil finds. The place of key discoveries will probably be the
African continent;
and the time period Wilson and Sarich confidently predict will be
consistent with
the measurements of the Protein Clock. So perhaps one day we'll be
hearing about
the discovery of bones and teeth, the remains of creatures, not quite gorilla,
not quite chimp, not quite human, but creatures beginning to edge
slowly in the human direction.
Says Dr. Wilson, "It's important that people have a realistic
understanding
of what our relationship is to apes. It's one thing to picture them either as
rapacious King Kongs or comic TV cutups; it's another to sec the truth. And the
truth is that we are by far the most aggressive species. Chimps and
gorillas are
quite gentle, gorillas particularly. So we've really been deluding
ourselves about
what we are like and what they are like."
"To understand our own evolution," says the Berkeley
biochemist, "we
must know what the real base is, both from the standpoint of anatomy
and behavior.
And it's lucky we still have with us creatures like chimps and gorillas, so we
can actually compare anatomies and study behavior. Then, too, it's
important that
their relationship to us be put in the proper evolutionary perspective."
Such is the mission of the biochemist, Dr. Allan Wilson, and the
anthropologist,
Dr. Vincent Sarich. And if their conclusions are corroborated in the crucible
of scientific criticism, then the kind of animal the chimpanzee is becomes ever
more significant in man's ceaseless effort to know himself.
WHY NO BROADCASTS BY CHRISTIAN SCIENTISTS?
John W. Haas, Jr.
Gordon College
Wenham, Massachusetts 01984
The scientific community continues to increase its efforts to educate
the public
about various elements of scientific advance. Motivation for this effort lies
somewhere between altruism and the recognition that the public (e.g. Congress)
might be more willing to support science if it were more aware of the wonders
of scientific advance. The broadcast media have provided opportunity
for professional
scientists such as Leonard Reiffle and John Fitch, and others associated with
government agencies, large universities or technical societies such as the ACS
or AAAS to reach the general public. Translation of the data and
theoretical framework
of modern science into a language which is both accurate yet of interest to the
casual lay listener is a challenging task. The long established
University Explorer
Series sponsored by the University of California has been a pioneer
in this effort.
The "Protein Clock Broadcast" deals with one of the more
complex fields
in molecular biologythat of extracting evolutionary information about species
by comparing homologous proteins (those having a common ancestral
origin) in different
species. This newly developing area of research is seen to provide three main
areas of evolutionary information from protein analysis.
(1) The construction of phvlogenetic trees suggesting the
evolutionary relations
of the various species based on the amino acid sequences of a set of homologous
proteins found in these species (e.g., eytochrome C, hemoglobin,
insulin or albumin)
using the same kinds of considerations employed traditionally in establishing
relationships from anatomical features.
(2) The probable amino acid sequence of the specified protein is deduced for a
precursor common to a given set of species on a branch of the
phylagenetic tree.
(3) The rates of evolution of these homologous proteins are found to he related
to a number of amino acid positions in a given protein at any one
time which are
free to mutate (called codons or covarions). Proteins with many
covarions change
relatively rapidly while those with few change slowly. It is found as well that
the rates of change appear to he nearly
constant over evolutionary time for a given amino acid. In evaluating
this broadcast
in terms of popular appeal, one is impressed by the clarity of style,
development
of the subject and the choice of a subject of general interest and
the suggestion
of a behavioral application. The listener did not appear to be lost in numbers
and data but came away with a conclusion, some idea concerning the experimental
basis for the conclusion, and some interesting implications to be
drawn from the
conclusion.
However, the very features which lead to popular appeal detract from
the overall
accuracy and balance of the presentation. Until the last paragraph one detects a
tending toward "positive thinking." No mention is made of
experimental
difficulties, of differences of opinion among various workers, the differences
in the phylogenic trees developed for different proteins and the obvious errors
in a tree when compared with the classically developed lines even
though the results
are very similar.
Christian broadcasting continues to expand yet sees little input from science or any of the nontheological disciplines.
One may well share the enthusiasm of these workers, yet the caution appearing
in the regular scientific literature is missing. In spite of this criticism the
article does accurately reflect the general conclusions of workers in
the field.
We scientist-Christians talk to one another at great length in person
and in print
and occasionally enter the more popular religious press. The science
film ministry
and other media presentations of the Moody Science group is impressive. Yet for
the most part we neglect the general Christian public. Radio provides
a relatively
inexpensive and simple means for reaching a vast audience. Christian
broadcasting
continues to expand yet sees little input from science or any of the
non-theological
disciplines.
Are we negligent in not encouraging a Hale Sparks, a Leonard Reiff I or a John
Fitch to interpret scientific advance to the Christian community and provide an
alternative view especially in those areas where science and ethics
converge?
AN INCONSISTENT POSITION
Duane T. Gish
Creation Science Research Center
2716 Madison Ave. San
Diego, California
92116
Barlow has said 'Evolution has a fascination for all biologists, for
all scientists.
Since it is the all-pervading concept of biology, every worker is
able to categorize
his findings, somehow, into an evolutionary framework."1
Molecular biologists
are meeting this challenge as adroitly as have other evolutionary biologists,
although the conclusions of Wilson and Sarieh,2 as well as those of
King and Jukes,3
and of Fitch and Margohash,4 that the majority of amino acid substitutions are
due to neutral mutations and thus have become fixed by random genetic
drift rather
than by natural selection, will he too much for "classical
evolutionists"
to swallow. One of these "classical evolutionists" has
recently challenged
the validity of the calculations of King and Jukes, and of Fitch and
Margoliash,
and has reached just the opposite conclusion, namely, "that
protein sequences,
like other characters, seem to have eolved under the dominating
influence of natural
selection."5
Wilson and Sarich have stated that "In spite of the vast effort which has
been devoted to the study of human evolution, there is still no
measure of agreement
as to the origin of man". After pointing out that current estimates of the
time of divergence of the human lineage from that leading to apes have varied
widely (from 4 million to 30 million years), they go on to say
"The disagreements
are due in part to the fragmentary nature of the fossil record which consists
largely of teeth and jaws, and in part to the failure of traditional
comparative
anatomy to develop methods which would lead to agreement, even among
anatomists,
as to the evolutionary meaning of such data . 'T As a "special
creationist",
I would like to suggest that this lack of agreement among evolutionists as to
the origin of man is due not so much to the fragmentary nature of the evidence,
as fragmentary as it indeed may be, but due simply to the fact that man did not
evolve, but was created as described in the Bible (Genesis 2:7, 21, 22).
Concerning the problem of "protein clocks", we would like
first to consider
the implication of the fact that there is an undeniable similarity in
amino acid
sequences, or "homology", in the proteins found in various
species which
perform the same function. Here we use the term "homology"
in the sense
of Neurath, Walsh, and Winter,6 that "The term homology as
applied to proteins
refers to similarity in amino acid
sequence", rather than according to Nolan and Margohash,7 where the term
homologous was taken to imply "that the genes coding for the polypeptide
chains considered, in all the species carrying these proteins, had at one time
a common ancestral gene". The similarity, or homology, of
certain proteins,
such as the cytochromes, insulins, proteases, eorticotropins, etc., is exactly
what would be expected on the basis of either evolution or special creation. On
the basis of evolutionary theory, the insulins from various species,
for instance,
would be expected to he similar in structure, since they at one time
had a common
ancestral gene. The "special creationist" would also expect them to
have similar structures, since they were designed to perform the same function.
They would not be expected to have identical structures, because it is obvious
species are not identical, and thus there are differences in the
internal structures
of the cells making up the species. For each cell, the structures of
all the molecules
found in it are tailored in such a way that a perfect balance is obtained for
its metabolic activities.
Already many data have accumulated that are inconsistent with an evolutionary hypothesis for the origin of protein structures, and no doubt future research will uncover many more.
Whether differences in amino acid sequences! of homologous proteins may be used
as "protein clocks" to determine the time of evolutionary
divergences,
if, in fact, the origin of the various categories is due to evolution, depends
on the validity of several assumptions. Wilson and Sarich accept, first of all,
the assumption of paleontologists that the divergence of the horse lineage from
that leading to primates occurred about 75 million years ago. In view
of the fact
that paleontologists estimate the time of divergence of man from ape variously
from as little as 4 million years to as much as 30 million years would seem to
recommend great caution in accepting their estimates for times of divergence of
other lines.
Secondly, Wilson and Sarich have made the dubious assumption that in
a fixed interval
of time, the probability for a mutation to occur is constant. This assumption
brings them into conflict with the mutation-selection theory held by
Neo-Darwinian
evolutionists. Wilson and Sarich, as do King, Jokes, Fitch, and
Margoliash, assume
that most changes in protein structures were due to neutral mutations, and thus
became fixed by random genetic drift, rather than being fixed by natural
selection. If these changes were due to natural selection, they could not have
occurred in a constant and regular way, since natural selection
depends upon changes
in the environment, which do not occur in a regular or constant fashion.
Wilson and Sarich maintain that these changes have been the result of neutral
mutations, since they have not altered the active center, and each
protein, though
differing somewhat in structure, functions equally well. For
instance, all cytocbromcs
C function equally efficiently in electron transport, regardless of differences
in amino acid sequence. Wilson and Sarich have forgotten, however, that these
activities are measured in vitro, and not 'within the cell from which they have
been derived. It is possible, even likely, that cytochrnme C derived
from a human
source is more efficient in man than that derived, for instance, from carp. It
is also possible that other factors, in addition to function, may influence the
adaptation of a particular structure. The efficiency of synthesis of a protein
must surely be affected as the structure of that protein changes,
since that synthesis
depends upon the particular internal structure of the cell in which
it is synthesized.
With these arguments, the creationist
finds himself in agreement with the Darwinian evolu-tionist. The
creationist must
assume that the Creator has given each protein its particular structure because
that structure confers upon it a uniquely efficient ability to
perform its particular
task.
The acceptance of a theory as scientifically valid should be dependent upon the
consistency of the data from which it has been derived, and upon its ability to
predict the nature of data to be derived from further investigations. All data
must he shown to he consistent with the theory. Many data were consistent with
the Ptolemaic theory of the universe, and this theory was accepted
for centuries.
As further data were collected, however, more and more
inconsistencies developed,
requiring construction of more and more subsidiary hypotheses. The
Ptolemaie theory
was eventually replaced by the Copernican theory, which seems to
count for all the known data. Already many data have accumulated that
are inconsistent
with an evolutionary hypothesis for the origin of protein structures,
and no doubt
future research will uncover many more.
On the basis of Wilson and Sarich's theory that most differences in homologous
proteins have been due to neutral mutations, considerable heterogeneity in the
structure of a particular protein among the individuals of a species would be
expected. Although
there are considerable differences -when species are compared with one another,
the structure of a protein within each species, however, is
remarkably consistent.
For example, in the case of human hemoglobin, the sequence of any one
of the four
most prevalent chains, alpha, beta, gamma, and delta, is identical in
most humans.
There are a number of individuals, bowever, who produce abnormal
hemoglobin, usually
contaming one site which has mutated. Very often these people are ill with some
form of anemia. If Wilson and Sarich are correct, it would seem that we should
expect a family of alpha chains, for example, each capable of
functioning equally
well in human hemoglobin. This is not what we find. There seems to be a unique
structure, the human alpha hemoglobin chain, for all healthy individuals. The
same applies for the beta, gamma and delta chains.
The consistency of such data permits us to speak, for example, of
"ox insulin",
"human insulin", "guinea pig insulin", etc. If there 'were
hetereugencity within species, we could only speak of the "ox
insulins",
"human insulins", "guinea pig insulins", etc. In all horse
eytochiromes C examined to date, there is a threonine at position 47.
That position
in the donkey, on the other hand, always has a serine. How could such
specificity
arise if such a change is due merely to neutral mutations?
Many features of protein structure have been discovered which are inconsistent
with current evolutionary theory, only a few of which can be
mentioned here. The
insulins of the sperm whale and of the fin whale are identical to those of dog
and pig, but differ from that of the sei whale.8 The insulin of guinea pig is
unique, its structure being considerably different from all other
known insulins,9
For instance, there are 18 differences when the amino acid sequence of guinea
pig insulin is compared to that of either human insulin or that of a
fellow rodent,
the rat.
Among the eytoehromes C, we find that the structure of that for the rattlesnake
varies in 22 places when compared to that for the turtle, another reptile, but
only in 14 places when compared to that for human.10 \Vhen the cytochromes
C of two closely related organisms, those of Dcsultonibrio rlesnlfuriean.s and
Dosnifocilsrio enlgaris, are compared, it is found that although these proteins
have similar molecular weights, partial specific volumes, chain
lengths, and number
of homes, they differ markedly in amino acid composition11. When Narita and
Titani compared the eytoehromes C of two species of yeast, those of
Candida krusei and of Sacclsaromyces ociformis, they concluded that a total of
38 base exchanges would have had to occur in DNA to account for these
differences.12
One example of heterogeneity among enzyme proteins that has been discovered is
that of bovine carhoxpeptidase A, reported by Neurath and colleagues. 13 They
have found two allotypie forms which occur in approximately equal
amounts. These
two forms differ in their amino acid sequences at three places, positions 179,
228, and 305. One form is called the val form, the other, the leo form. In the
val form, isoleueine, alanine, and valine occur at positions 179, 228, and 305,
respectively, while in the len form these positions are occupied by
valine, glutamic
acid, and leocine, respectively. According to evolutionary
hypothesis, there should
he at least two intermediate forms, since the two alleles differ at
three positions.
The required intermediates, however, have been definitely shown to be absent by
the work of Neurath and his colleagues.14
Recently Braun, at al, have reported the amino acid composition of a
lipoprotein
isolated from the rigid layer of the cell wall of Salmonella lyphimurium.15 This
lipoprotein is composed of about 60 amino acids. Surprisingly, it contains no
glycine. This is especially puzzling if an evolutionary origin for this protein
is assumed. In all experiments conducted to date to show how amino
acids may have
arisen under supposed primordial earth conditions, the amino acid produced in
overwhelming relative abundance has been that of glycine. Based on
this relative
abundance, one would expect all naturally occurring proteins, especially those
found in micro organisms, to contain some glycine. Yet not a single residue of
glycine is found in this protein. One could not say that such an occurrence is
impossible on an evolutionary basis, hot it is certainly very highly
unlikely.
Finally it may be mentioned that Eck and Dayhoff, with reference to attempts to
infer biological phylogenetic trees from amino acid sequences, state
that, "In
some instances, there seems to be no unique plausible solution. We
are still unable
to resolve clearly such details as the relative divergence points of horse and
pig"."
We wish to repeat that for a theory to be scientifically valid, all
of the available
data most be consistent with that theory. It seems obvious that such is not the
ease with reference to the evolutionary origin of proteins, whether
all of protein
evolution is said to be accounted for by Darwinian evolution, or whether some
may be accounted for by neutral mutations and
random genetic drift.
In "The Protein Clock", Sarich is quoted as saying that
"No matter
what you look at, there's nothing in the molecular evidence
indicating any significant
degree of divergence between man and chimpanzee". If this is true, and if
it is true that the protein clock allows us to determine the degree
of divergence
of of the various species, then one may he led to the ridiculous
conclusion that
man and chimpanzee have not diverged at all! I am sore that Sarich and Wilson
do not go that far, although their conclusion is that, if their
theory holds up,
then "the kind of animal the chimpanzee is becomes ever more significant
in man's ceaseless effort to know himself". After many decades
of psychological,
sociological, and anthropological research on the human species, man has yet to
understand himself. I doubt that turning to the chimp will help to solve these
problems.
Finally, in contrast to Sarich's statement that the molecular
evidence indicates
no significant degree of divergence between man and chimpanzee, Clark
17 has stated
"There is a sharp, cleancot, and very marked difference between
man and the
apes. Every hone in the body of a man is at once distinguishable from the
corresponding bone in the body of the apes... Man
is not an ape, and in spite of the similarity between them there is
not the slightest
evidence that man is descended from an ape".
REFERENCES
1G. W. Barlow, Science, 139, 851 (1963).
2A C. Wilson and V. M. Sarich, Proc. Nat. Acad, Sci., 63, 1088 (1969).
3J. L. King and T. H. jukes, Science, 164, 788 (1969).
4
W. M. Fitch and E. Margoliash. Science, 155, 279 (1967).
5
B. Clarke, Science, 168, 1009 (1970).
6H. Nenrath, K. A. Walsh and W. P. Winter, Science, 158, 1638 (1967).
7
C. Nolan and E. Margoliash, Ann. Rev. Biochem., 37, 727 (1968).
8R. V. Eck and M. 0. Dayboff, Atlas of Protein Sequence and
Structure 1966, National Biomedical Research Foundation,
Silver Springs, Maryland, 1966, p. 110.
9ibid,, p. 191.
10ibid., p. 170.
11H.
Drucker, E. B. Trnnsfl, L. L. Campbell, C. II. Barlow,
and E. Margoliash, Biochemistry, 9, 1515 (1970).
12K. Narita and K. Titaoi, Proc. Japan Acad., 41, 831 (1965).
13P. H. Petra, B.
A. Bradshaw. K. A. Walsh, and H. Neurath, Biochemistry, 8, 2762 (1969).
l4See L. Butler, J. Creation Research Soc., 6, 127 (1969) for
a more complete discussion.
15V. Baron, K. Echo, and H. Wolff, Biochemistry, 9, 5041
(1970). l
16Reference 8, p. 199.
17
H. Clark, in The New Evolution: Zoogenesis, A. Ii. Clark. ed.
Williams and Wilkins,
Baltimore 1930 p. 224.
SCIENTIFIC TOOL OR CREATION PITFALL
Jerry D. Albert
Department of Pathology
University Hospital of San Diego County
San
Diego, California
92103
A biochemical timepiece for measuring the period of time since man
and his fellow
primates., the anthropoid apes, diverged from a common ancestor has
been proposed
by biochemist Allan Wilson and anthropologist Vincent Sarich.1 Their molecular
clock has shed new light on primate evolution: man and apes separated about 4
to 5 million years ago of 25 million years more recently than some
anthropologists
believe. Since the start of the human fossil record is dated at close
to 3 million
years, the new clock has considerably narrowed the gap in the story
of human evolution.
This narrowed gap limits room for speculation on reconstruction of
human prehistory.
What should be the reaction of a Christian to "The Protein
Clock?" Or,
what might be the reaction of a Christian who understands the science
of the protein
clock? Is the protein clock merely a scientific tool for studying
man's ancestry
and measuring the time of divergence of biological species? Or, is it a pitfall
to the Christian who believes in the God of creation?
First of all, I believe God has created everything in the universe, including
all living beings. His creation is good and has purpose. On a personal level,
I can say with Luther "that God has created me and all that
exists, has given
me and still preserves my body and soul with all their powers, provides ...
and protects me "2 This personal aspect of creation directly
relates my existence
to God, and gives my
life meaning because God gave it to me and continues to sustain it.
Secondly, along with the overwhelming majority of scientists, I
believe that life
has arisen through natural processes of chemical and biological evolution. We
are convinced that life has evolved or changed over a long period of
time on the
basis of the vast amount of scientific evidence from the geologic and
geographic
distribution of life, from comparative anatomy, biochemistry,
embryology, genetics,
and paleontology.3-6
Thirdly, I believe Cod has been and is intimately involved in His creation and
that He has used natural processes of evolution to bring about and change life
forms for His purposes. lie directs, guides and controls every detail
of His creation,
even though evolution, in our present capacity of perception, appears
impersonal
and depends upon random events. (Note that although gene mutation may
he statistically
random and constant, the net result usually is not, since the
environmental pressure
is the final determinant in the expression of gene mutations as
evolutionary changes.)
Creation and evolution are not contrasts, but they complement each other.3 Cod
operates through natural processes, and the Biblical view of creation
takes these
processes into account.3
We are convinced that life has evolved or changed over a long period of time on the basis of the vast amount of scientific evidence from the geologic and geographic distribution of life, from comparative anatomy, biochemistry, embryology, genetics, and paleontology.
Fourth, I believe that a proper consideration of the truth of God's revelation
of Himself through His Word, in general, will never conflict with a
valid interpretation
of the evidence for natural processes operating in God's world.
Apparent conflicts,
I am convinced, arise only from misinterpretation of God's Word or
from misapplication
of knowledge of God's world. Asking questions inconsistent with the revela
tional purpose of the Bible leads to misinterpretations of God's Word.8 Proper
Biblical interpretation can only result from deriving the revelational content
of the Biblical message according to its revelational purpose and using other
widely accepted principles of hermeneutics.+8 On the other hand, the nature and
scope of science must be understood in order to avoid extending
knowledge of Cod's
world beyond valid scientific limits.7
Fifth, I believe God chose to endow hominids having the mental capability with
consciousness and moral responsibility. During the course of evolution hominids
obtained the capacity for a consciousness of self and of their relationship to
others and to their world. This consciousness led to their need for
moral responsibility.
I believe the unique relationship between man and His Creator was established
at this early stage of human evolution.
Finally, I believe that an honest appraisal of Biblical exegesis established by
Old Testament scholarship and a consistent application of
hermeneutical principles
accepted by the Lutheran confessors, as well as other truly
conservative and orthodox
Christian scholars of the Bible, will lead one to the conclusion that Adam is
our representative. 9 Theologically speaking, Adam is the
"father of mankind,"
the first man, the first sinner, the first in a long line of believers.3 He is
our spiritual ancestor whose characteristics we still bear in the
concept of original
sin, the tendency of man to assert his independence from God, thus severing his
relationship with Cod and setting himself up as his own god, or
ultimate concern.
But from our present state of knowledge about man's ancestry, the
idea of a "first
man" seems neither biologically nor historically relevant.3 As
Adam is understood
to represent all mankind, the fall is recognized as universal sin and
imperfection
in human relations.5,9 The Biblical story of the idyllic beginning of
man in Eden
strongly emphasizes that God is not the originator of sin, but that man, as a
result of his disobedience and rebellion against God, is fully responsible3 for
his alienation from God, from others, from nature, and from himself. (Perhaps
this alienation is the reason why man is more violent than his fellow primates
who have had no such relationship with God to sever.)
With these principles in mind, I conclude that the protein clock, as
well as any
other scientific tool for the measurement of time which estimates the antiquity
of past events on an evolutionary time scale, is not a "creation
pitfall",
nor is it a threat to Christian faith or to the validity of statements of faith
expressed by the Ecumenical Creeds or by the ASA membership (see
inside back cover
of this Journal). Both the Christian and non-Christian need to realize that the
reliability of the Bible as God's Word and the vitality
of a human life with God as Creator, Redeemer, and
Sanctifier are entirely independent of whether the theory of
evolution is completely
true, partially true, or merely incomplete. Also, everyone needs to recognize
that the validity of science as a means to understand God's world and
of the pursuit
of science by a Christian are entirely independent of whether the doctrines of
Biblical inspiration, inerrancy, and infallibility are absolutely
true, theologically
true or applicable only to dynamic reationships, rather than to
stagnant propositional
statements.
The Bible tells us that the world is God's good
creation. Science tells us what is in the world and attempts to explain how and
when everything came about. According to the Bible, creation is not
"explanation"
of the world, but it relates this world and everything in it to God.
"Explanations"
can be left to the proper domain of science, but the relationship between God
and this world is eminently the domain of theology.' The Bible and science can
thus complement each other.
REFERENCES
1Levy, C., and T. Bunnell. "The Protein Clock," Text of
2110th broadcast
of The University (of California) Explorer, Hale Sparks, on CBS
Radio, Armed Forces
Radio, Voice of America; Apr. 5, 1970; Wilson, A. C., and V. M.
Sarich. Molecular
Time Scale for Human Evolution. Proc. Nat. Acad. Science. U. S. 63
(4). 1088-93.
1969.
2The Small Catechism by Martin Luther: his explanation to the 1st
Article of The
Apostles' Creed in contemporary English, o. 10. Augsburg Publishing
House, Minneapolis.
1960. (The author of "Scientific Tool or Creation Pitfall?"
is a communicant
member of The Lutheran ChurchMissouri Synod and a biochemist at
University Hospital
of San Diego County.)
3
Wan der Ziel A., Genesis and Scientific Inquiry. T. S. Denison & Co., inc.,
Minneapolis. 1965. (a brief, but excellent exegesis of Genesis 1-12
with scientific
commentary)
4Porter, I. H. Heredity and Disease. pp. 348-386, Chap. 6, Evolution;
The Blakiston
Division, McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York. 1968. (a fascinating account of human
evolution-past, present and future)
5Eckelmann, F, D. in R. Buhe, ed. The Encounter Between Christianity
and Science.
pp. 165169. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. 1969.
6Mixter, R. L., ed., Evolution and Christian Thought Today. Wm. B.
Eerdmans Publishing
Co., Grand Rapids, Mich. 1960.
7Bube, R. The Encounter Between Christianity and Science. pp. 17-42. Chap. 1,
The Nature of Science.
8Bube, R., ibid. pp. 83-106, Chap. 4, Biblical Revelation.
9Habel, N. C. The Form and Meaning of the Fall Narrative.
Concordia Seminary Print Shop, St. Lous. 1965. (an excellent,
scholarly, exegetical
commentary on Genesis 2 and 3)