It has been 30 years since a very significant scientific article about proteins was published by researchers. One of the scientists is Robert T. Sauer, Salvador E. Luria Professor of Biology at MIT. He has a BA from Amherst in biophysics and a PhD from Harvard. The paper and the findings are technical, but I will attempt to explain, so I hope you will try to read through. The paper is by JF Reidhaar-Olson and RT Sauer, "Functionally acceptable substitutions in two alpha-helical regions of lambda repressor," Proteins, 7, 4 (1990): 306-16. From here I will refer to the article as RO&S, and the abstract can be found in the paper title link at the NCBI PubMed website. NCBI stands for National Center for Biotechnology Information.
The Lambda phage is a virus that infects bacteria, in this case E. coli., and it has a protein called repressor. I have included an image of repressor (purple) next to a DNA strand, from Research Collaboratory for Structural Bioinformatics Protein Data Bank (RCSB PDB). More information on this protein is at RCSB PDB entry 3BDN. Citation for RCSB PDB: Helen M. Berman, John Westbrook, Zukang Feng, Gary Gilliland, T. N. Bhat, Helge Weissig, Ilya N. Shindyalov, Philip E. Bourne, "The Protein Data Bank," Nucleic Acids Research 28, 1 (Jan. 1, 2000): 235–242.
Proteins are made within the cell, the basic unit of biology, of every living organism. DNA codes for proteins, which do much of the work of the specific cells. The alpha helical regions to which the RO&S paper refer are among the particular parts of proteins that give them their function. The lambda repressor was the protein they were researching, although they used just part of the protein for the experiments. The substitutions in the title refer to the subunits of proteins, called amino acids. There are 20 kinds of these in most proteins and each is made of a certain set of atoms. The researchers wanted to see how many amino acids could be interchanged with the parts of the protein still remaining functional. They used an experimental method to make random substitutions in these subunits within the repressor protein. The amino acids are numbered and they used two sets: 8-23 and 75-83 (Using 1-92 amino acids of a 237 amino acid protein).
I will use the term "permutation" here, meaning the evaluation of proteins must include specific order of amino acids and their repetition, unlike "combination" which does not require a specific order. (I am saying here, though will elaborate in another post, protein probabilities are not evaluated like card games.) RO&S reveals that though there are a large number of subunit permutations which can make working protein folds similar to the particular one they studied, the proportion of functional ones of possible permutations are only about 1 in 10^63. 10^63 is the number 1 with 63 0's following it. (I like to use a caret ^ when writing what are called exponents because it is easier but (for example in this case) the number can be written 1063 . The first or lower number is the base and the second or upper one is the exponent. The exponent tells you how many times to multiply the base times itself to get to the final number it describes.) 1 in 10^63 is a very, very small proportion of permutations that work. Relating to evolution, the less proportion of functional choices there are, the less the probability you will get one to form by chance. There has to be something to choose from (coming from mutations) in order to get any selection!
The authors of the RO&S paper claim the gist of this research was supposed to show the admittedly large number of possibilities for the amino acid subunit combinations to make protein folds (the term “degeneracy” they speak about in abstract). However, the paper showed something way more significant, the proportion of non-functional to functional as already described. To give the researchers credit, they do talk about the limitations of content of proteins in the abstract, but not the specific findings. A reader has to follow the paper to the second last paragraph of the article to find it, and the paper is behind a paywall!
If you are at all interested in reading the whole RO&S article, the abstract page from my link has a link you can follow to get access to the paper. But it is through Readcube and there is a charge and as far as I know you can't get it free online. If anyone knows it is available online, please let me know. However, I got my copy of the entire paper through inter-library loan for free a few years ago. Inter-library loan is still available, although I don’t know if it always provides the whole paper. Or, you may live close to a University which allows access to their journals. I was able to read several other articles in this way. Fortunately, there are some research articles which are available online in complete form, and I have an important one here with a link (Fredric P. Nelson) which I discuss below.
Another significant fact about the RO&S research was that, although they used different methods than some theoretical work done earlier by Hubert Yockey who applied Information Theory, their work closely backed his. Yockey's research was done in the 1970s and gave indications then that proteins are very rare. I have a previous post about this work. He used a protein involved in respiration, Cytochrome C, and compared it in different species. An image of it is included here from Uniprot entry P99999. Citation for Uniprot is Uniprot Consortium, "UniProt: a worldwide hub of protein knowledge," Nucleic Acids Research 47, D1 (Jan. 8, 2019): D506-D515.
A link is here to the abstract of the paper by Hubert P. Yockey, "A calculation of the probability of spontaneous biogenesis by information theory," Journal of Theoretical Biology 67, 3 (August 7, 1977): 377-398. He included a few more chemical factors and estimated a chance in the range of 1 in 10^65 for nature to select a Cytochrome C sequence randomly.
Then other experiments were done and numbers proved to be again similar. An important scientist has researched at University of Cambridge. The Abstract in one of his papers is from Douglas Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds," Journal of Molecular Biology 341, 5 (Aug 27, 2004): 1295-1315. It shows a 1 in 10^64 proportion for a low-function domain and 1 in 10^77 for overall short protein function. Perhaps a general number of 1 in 10^70 could be used for simple proteins, but many are much more complex and therefore would be even more rare. The numbers compare to 10^65 atoms in our galaxy to 1^90 particles in the universe.
The Darwinian claim is to take the fact that DNA randomly mutates (or changes) as time goes by and conclude that the resulting proteins, which are a little different from previous ones, will lead to new species. The fittest, or best, of these changes in particular individuals allows them to survive and leads to fitter organisms. Evolutionists say the 4 billion years of the Earth's habitable environment allowed for enough changes for humans to emerge. But organisms change only a little at a time. Bacteria do not even have one change per generation.
There may be some small, natural neo-Darwinian evolution in life, but there are other considerations. We must include large differences between some proteins as well as small ones. Some resemble each other and are functional and may have come from random mutations of DNA down the generations. Maybe even a protein that is slightly broken from a mutation may stop an antibiotic from binding to a bacteria's wall thereby making it resistant to the antibiotic. But there are many critically necessary proteins that are not even close to others in terms of their subunit arrangements and could never have evolved one from another, in a Darwinian sense, even in four billion years.
We need to look at a few more discoveries. As scientists discover the DNA (and thereby protein) codes of more and more species, they are finding a certain percentage of each, around 10% to 30%, are not related to any other species. These as a group are known, among other names, as orphan, or ORFan genes (a gene being defined as a protein-coding part of the DNA chain). Among the many scientific papers that have been reporting this finding is by Arendsee, Li, and Wurtele, "Coming of age: orphan genes in plants," Trends in Plant Science 19, 11 (Nov. 2014): 698-708. This finding is related to the limit of numbers of organisms that have been available to mutate for "tries" for functional proteins just mentioned.
Concerning life's origin, a minimal, natural free-living organism (not a lab creature which is given nutrients) has been estimated to need around 1000 proteins to survive by NCBI researchers Koonin and Wolf, "Geneomics of bacteria and archaea: the emerging dynamic view of the prokaryotic world," Nucleic Acids Research 36, 21 (Dec. 2008): 6688-6719. Even if some were closely related, the independent probability of only 10%, or 100, functional proteins is about 1 in 10^7,000.
Pertaining to both origin and evolution, N. Tokuriki and D. Tawfik researched protein stability in terms of thermodynamics and kinetics. They found only a few substitutions could be tolerated before the proteins became severely impeded in their function. Though there can be compensation, this severely limits any ease of evolution. The article is N. Tokuriki and D. Tawfik, "Stability effects of mutations and protein evolvability," Current Opinion in Structural Biology 19, 5 (Oct. 2009): 596-604.
So no, these numbers are not wiped away by the Darwinian duo of random mutation and selection of the fittest. We must keep in mind that for evolution, the first step, random mutation, must happen first inside the organisms in their reproductive cells in order to form any new proteins that could be selected. This vast improbability of functional proteins overwhelms even the number of organisms that existed on Earth. No mutation rate could bring about new proteins on a viable level.
Also, I don't believe quantum physics either explains or explains away proteins. QP is real and admittedly very strange, but chemistry is also real and is described by its own physical rules. If that were not true, we'd all be constantly slipping in and out of reality (granted, some think this is exactly what happens).
The rarity of functional protein folds is one of the features that convinced a well-known Yale computer expert and professor to recently exclaim Darwin’s theory proven false. His essay is David Gelernter, "Giving up Darwin," Claremont Review of Books, XIX, 2 (Spring 2019): 104-109.
There are admittedly many, many things to learn about proteins and DNA. That is important for creationists to keep in mind. However, for scientists to insist on totally naturalistic evolution by random chance, they deny what is true once again. In Darwin's day, they said the cells were blobs which had little to no internal activity. Then scientists denied DNA and proteins were rare due to specificity, which is proving to be wrong. They claimed DNA was filled with junk which is now being revealed as useful. All their false concepts delay scientific progress, yet they claim the creationists are the ones who are detrimental to it. Thankfully there are individuals who do not stop investigating when the consensus resists change.
One book about Catholics and evolution is by Fr. Michael Chaberek, OP, Aquinas and Evolution (Chartwell Press, 2007). Chaberek asserts that at the end of the nineteenth century, "Thomists universally rejected the Darwinian theory of origins" (p. 10). He lays out his thesis that Aquinas was not an evolutionist and today's science would not change his mind. In the Forward to the book, Logan Gage, PhD, Chair of the Philosophy Dept. at Franciscan University of Steubenville, writes, "Culturally it has been easy to dismiss worries about Darwinian evolution as a 'fundamentalists' Protestant problem. Additionally, we Catholics have a 'Galileo Complex.'"
Some Christians insist that God would only create life in a certain materialistic way. I remind everyone that God does as He sees fit, and many Christians look at the living wonders of the world and think God made at least some of them in original species through Special Creation. New scientific discoveries are actually supporting our view.
For us, science is the study of created physical things. We need to show the world it is not only reasonable to be a believer, it adds the vital meaning to our lives. Let us praise the Lord, through Jesus Christ, for His Creation.
For us, science is the study of created physical things. We need to show the world it is not only reasonable to be a believer, it adds the vital meaning to our lives. Let us praise the Lord, through Jesus Christ, for His Creation.
