CREATIONRESEARCH SOCIETY

1967 ANNUAL

Haec credimus:

For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth,

the sea, and all that in them is and rested on

the seventh. - Exodus 20:11

VOLUME 4 JUNE, 1967 NUMBER 1

CREATION RESEARCH SOCIETY1967 ANNUAL

Volume 4 JUNE, 1967 Number 1

EDITORIAL BOARDWalter E. Lammerts, Editor

P. O. Box 496

Freedom, California

John N. Moore, Managing Editor

Department of Natural Science, Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan

Henry M. Morris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.

John W. Klotz . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Concordia Senior College, Fort Wayne, Indiana

William J. Tinkle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Anderson College (retired), Eaton, Indiana

George F. Howe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Westmont College, Santa Barbara, Calif.

Thomas G. Barnes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Texas Western College,El Paso, Texas

Donald O. Acrey, Geophysicist . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Amarillo, Texas

John C. Whitcomb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Grace Theological Seminary,Winona Lake, Indiana

TABLE OF CONTENTS(Contents, or parts thereof, may not be reproduced in any form without

permission of the Editors or author of an article. )Page

Dedication to William John Tinkle. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3Editorial Comment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Ararat—The Mother of Mountains . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Clifford L. BurdickDNA: lts History and Potential . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Duane T. GishSome Molecular Approaches to Taxonomy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

Wayne FrairDNA Studies in Relation to Creation Concepts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

John J. GrebeEvolution of Complex Organic Compounds—Possible?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Emmett L. Williams, Jr.Mutations Reveal the Glory of God’s Handiwork. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Walter E. LammertsIs DNA Only a Material Cause?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41

Harold ArmstrongUniversities and Colleges Having the Creation Point of View. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46

Walter E. LammertsComments on Scientific News and Views . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

Harold Armstrong

WILLIAM JOHN TINKLE

This fourth Creation Research Society Annual

is dedicated to Professor William John Tinkle,retired. Professor Tinkle is a charter memberof the Creation Research Society, and richlydeserves recognition for his devoted pursuit oftruth under the guidance of God. He is Sec-retary of the Creation Research Society.

Dr. William John Tinkle was born in a logcabin in Indiana in 1892. Losing his father ata very early age, he was reared by his motherand maternal grandparents, who took him toSunday School and church regularly. He earlyshowed an interest in gardening and learned allthe species of trees in the neighborhood. In highschool his grades were the highest of any in theschool.

Dr. Tinkle was awarded the degree of Bach-elor of Arts by Manchester College in 1916,having majored in biology. He wrote a thesis on“The Darwinian Theory in the Light of LaterResearch.” After this he taught several years,beginning in a district school having all thegrades.

As was the custom in the Church of theBrethren, Dr. Tinkle was elected to the ministryby a vote of the congregation. He spent a yearin Bethany Biblical Seminary in Chicago. TheOhio State University conferred the degrees ofMaster of Arts and Doctor of Philosophy, thefield of specialization being zoology. Otherschools attended were Marion Normal Instituteand University of Wisconsin. He is listed inAmerican Men of Science and Leaders in Amer-ican Education.

Starting to write for publications as a highschool sophomore, he has written fundamentalsof Zoology and shared in writing Modern Scienceand Christian Faith, published by the AmericanScientific Affiliations.

He has spoken in Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania,California, Texas, and Canada and taught atTaylor University, LaVerne College, AndersonCollege, and others.

Dr. Tinkle married Lula Rench who passedaway in 1966, leaving a daughter, a son, andthree grandsons.

Tinkle’s M.A. thesis was on “The Inheritanceof Habitual Wandering,” and to his surprise itwas condensed and published in the LiteraryDigest. His Ph.D. thesis was on “Deafness as aEugenic Problem.”

Some of his articles follow. The Paradox ofa Century; Logical Accuracy; The Christian ina World of Change; DNA Helpless by Itself;Nature and God’s Personality; Look Again Be-fore You Doubt; Agreeing with Science; Con-formity a la Mode; Fun With Science (a series)Biological Theories of J. Henri Fabre; Crossingin Relation to the Origin of New Groups; GeniePurity and Its Implications; The Role of Muta-tion in Long Range Change; Change and Prog-ress; These Wonderful Scientists; It’s a Fact(a series); Communism and Her Ally; and manyothers.

He has been a member of the American Gen-etic Association, the Indiana Academy of Sci-ence, and the American Association for the Ad-vancement of Science for many years.

4

EDITORIAL COMMENTS

Though this 1967 Annual is primarily devotedto a discussion of comparative protein and DNA-RNA studies, it is only fitting that we shouldstart this series of articles with one on MountArarat. For, after all, we do believe that theDNA of all land-inhabiting birds and mammalseither walked, ran, or flew down this mountainand then gradually became dispersed over theface of the earth.

Frankly, until reading Clifford Burdick’s ar-ticle, I had never realized that Mount Araratwas so high or had so much ice on it! The greatvolcanic explosion which resulted in the AhoraGulch and the occurrence of conchoidal pillowlava are remarkable evidences of catastrophism.Quite evidently the pillow lava was formedunder water, perhaps during the subsidencestage of the Flood. We hope that a more de-tailed report on the glaciers of Mount Ararat maybe published later.

In order for us to understand how modernDNA studies reveal the amazing intricacy ofGod’s handiwork, we must first of all understandthe basic data and theory. Duane Gish, withhis usual clarity, does this in a discussion of thehistory of DNA discovery and formulation ofstructure. His exposure of the pseudo scientificfolly of enthusiasts who envision the day whenman can control his own heredity is very muchneeded, since magazines seem full of such stories.

Though his work is incomplete, Wayne Frairpresents interesting results of his comparativeprotein analysis of turtles. Eventually this typeof analytical work should enable us to definemore clearly the basic “kinds” of plant and ani-mal species. I venture to predict that there willbe many more basic “stem organisms” thaneven most creationists now imagine. We arealways particularly pleased to receive articles re-porting original research, and hope that otherscientists in our group will submit results oftheir own work for publication.

John Grebe does a remarkable job of pointingout what little we know in relation to whatremains to be known. Though his mathematicalconclusions may be involved, he certainly makesclear the point that spontaneous origin of suchsystems as DNA, selective amino acid build-upinto proteins, and properly correlated enzymaticactivity are mathematically impossible. In fact,if a butterfly did not exist, one could claim cer-tainly that it would be impossible to create one,based on man’s knowledge!

A splendid complementary article to Grebe’sis Emmett L. Williams’ demonstration, usingdata from D. E. Hull, that accumulation of thesimple organic compounds needed for life isthermodynamically impossible. It is sad thatevery high school boy and girl is not madethoroughly familiar with these facts and prin-ciples of physical chemistry, as an antidote toall of the evolutionary theory given to themin classrooms, magazines, and television.

Harold Armstrong, in addition to furnishingus with his quarterly “News and Views,” haspresented a splendid philosophical treatment ofjust what kind of “cause” DNA really is. I likeparticularly his discussion of Commoner’s workshowing the limitations of DNA. With so manyexpositors of science making a sort of “god” ofDNA, it is time to show that, with all of itscomplexity, DNA still is but the “servant” ofthe cell or organism as a whole, not the “master.”

We hope that our readers will feel betteracquainted with DNA as a result of readingthis Annual, and will use information hereinfor articles in local papers and magazines, thuscounteracting the false impression so often given,that life is about to be artificially created, or thatevolution is demonstrated by DNA studies.

Walter E. Lammerts,

Editor

5

ARARAT—THE MOTHER OF MOUNTAINSCLIFFORD L. BURDICK, PH.D.

206 N. Jacobus Avenue, Tucson, Arizona

This article presents some of the observations made during an expedition to Mt. Araratsponsored by the Archeological Research Foundation of New York. Eastern Turkey consists ofa relatively barren undeveloped area. Tectonically it is very active, and unstable structurally.The region has been folded, faulted, and intruded with basic types of volcanic rock, such asandesite and basalt. Mt. Ararat is 17,000 feet high, and at its greatest height perhaps measurednearer 20,000 feet.

Evidently the cover rocks were Paleozoic and Mesozoic limestone, and in places like Mt.Ararat were domed up by rising magma which burst through channels along fault lines.

During the Flood period at least three blankets of basaltic or andesitic lava were extrudedover the original Ararat which may have only been about 10,000 to 12,000 feet high originally.

Much of the lava is in rounded blocks called pillow lava, having a conchoidal appearanceindicating it flowed out from the fractures while under water. After subsidence of the floodwaters, almost the whole north-east side of the mountain blew up forming the Ahora gulch. Rockfragments and ash from this eruption cover about 100 square miles.

Greater Ararat is covered with an ice cap down to the 14,000 foot level. This cap is hundredsof feet thick and divides into 12 “fingers” or glaciers.

An analysis of five rock samples is given and also a list of fossils found by Abich.

IntroductionMount Ararat is one of the best known moun-

tains historically, but also one of the least knowngeologically. For some reason some scientistshave shied away from that area, perhaps becauseof its very Biblical connection.

Two German geologists have made geologicalobservations of the Ararat area; Hermann Abich,about 1845; and M. Blumenthal some 110 yearslater. Abich, it appears, was not afraid to men-tion the Flood and the Ark of Noah in connec-tion with Ararat, but not so with Blumenthal.So far as I know, geological evidence concerningMount Ararat is unavailable to American science,while geological data for most other parts ofthe world is quite abundant.

In 1946, an archeological company was or-ganized in California, the Sacred History Re-search Expedition, with the objective of helpingto fill this empty void scientifically, by meansof archeological, geological, glaciological, andother projects planned.

Dr. Kinnaman, the famous American archeolo-gist was to be a member of the expedition. Col.Koor, the Russian soldier-archeologist, was tolead us to some 20 archeological sites in needof investigation. But perhaps the time wasnot yet ripe. Twenty long years passed beforethis study of the Ararat area became reality. In1966, ten scientists and mountain climbers ac-tually arrived at camp on Mount Ararat to beginthis important work.

George Vandeman was chairman of the boardof the Archeological Research Foundation ofNew York, and a prime mover in the organiza-

tion. R. E. Crawford of Washington; Drs. Cal-vin and Agatha Thrash of Columbus, Georgia;Wilber Bishop of Cleveland, Tennessee, andSam Martz of Nashville, were directors of theFoundation.

Dr. Lawrence Hewitt of Huntsville, Alabama,was leader of the expedition, assisted by HarryCrawford of Denver, who had previously scaledthe mountain to its peak. Nicholas Van Arkleof Holland was in charge of the glaciologicalwork, mapping the ice cap-some 17 squaremiles in extent. He was ably assisted by twoSwiss mountaineers.

Alva Appel of Washington, D. C. and WilliamDougall of Seattle assisted Mr. Crawford inmountain climbing and recording general ob-servations of interest, (even hoping that onesuch observation might happen to be some re-mains of Noah’s Ark, as per rumors that nativesfrom time to time had stumbled on portions ofthe original wood).

Dr. Hewitt, besides giving leadership to theexpedition, made a botanical study of the moun-tain and gathered and pressed some 150 plantand flower specimens. Mr. Eryl Cummings ofFarmington, New Mexico, assisted me in makinggeological observations and in gathering rocksamples.

Although the Archeological Research Founda-tion was the organizational unit, it operatedlargely on contracts with the United Statesarmed forces, and with the Turkish government.The Turkish military command furnished trans-portation, as well as an interpreter and a soldierguard. The U. S. military command furnished

6

tents, bedding, supplies and great quantities offood (C Rations). Since the expedition operatedlargely in a sensitive military zone, some of thescientific data gathered were of a classified na-ture.

Eastern Turkey is a relatively undevelopedand semi-desert area, lying across a recognizedearthquake zone, composed largely of volcanicrock. The people native to that area have towork hard to make a living, and the Turkishgovernment welcomed this scientific expeditiongathering data on biology, geology, glaciology,soil chemistry and related aspects of the region.

Much of our work during the summer of 1966,revolved about the Mount Ararat region, whichcreated general interest because of its historicalconnection with the Ark of Noah. The Armen-ians, who have inhabited that area for manycenturies, call the mountain, Massis; the Turkscall it “Agri Dagh,” or painful mountain. ThePersians call it Koh-i-Nuh, that is, the “Mountainof Noah.”

GeomorphologyThe central backbone of Turkey between

Ankara and Erzurum is composed of a treeless,barren series of mountain chains of folded anduplifted Paleozoic and Mesozoic limestone.This is the central watershed and the sourceof the Tigris and Euphrates rivers. This lime-stone has been intruded in places by volcanicrocks, as at Kayseri (Caesarea) the locale ofexcavations for Hittite artifacts. The Hittitemuseum in Ankara is well worth visiting. Southof Kayseri is a multi-peaked, snow-capped moun-tain of some 15,000 feet elevation, known asErciyes.

From Erzurum, east to the Russian-Iranianborder, the landscape consists mainly of volcanicrocks, except for occasional outcrops of lime-stone. Much of this volcanic rock is on theborderline between basalt and andesite, thesamples collected from Persia being the mostbasic (mafic) as are also the Tendurek moun-tains, south-west of Mount Ararat, and the Hama,Kale and Pamuk mountains to the west.

The swampy plain between Dogubayazit andArarat is some 4,500 feet above sea level, but onthe north and east sides of Ararat the Aras rivervalley is between 2,500 and 3,000 feet above sea-level. Some 50 miles northwest of Mount Araratalong the Aras river is an extensive salt minewith a thickness of some 400 feet.

South-east of Little Ararat near the Iranianborder is a deep round hole in the basaltic rockabout 100 feet in diameter caused by a meteoritethat struck the ground in 1910, drilling a cleanround hole deep into the earth.

Greater Ararat is perpetually covered with anice capping down to the 14,000 foot level in

Figure 1. Greater Ararat and Lesser Ararat, lookingSouthwest, from the Aras river—the boundary linebetween Turkey and Russia. Ahora gulch is in theforeground of Greater Ararat.

summer. This ice cap is hundreds of feet thickand as it flows down the sides of the mountain,it divides into twelve “fingers” or glaciers, twoof which are the Parrot and Abich glaciers, thelatter of which tumbles down a vertical precipicethousands of feet into the Ahora gulch, with amighty roar that can be heard for miles. Twoof our mountain climbers, who were campingin the gulch, were nearly buried when 100,000tons or so of ice and snow came roaring downthe gulch.

The comparatively high snow-line is due tothe light precipitation and the upward rush ofdry air, from the Aras plain. This plain is averitable bread-basket for both Turkey andRussia. Although the upper and lower zones onthe mountain are sterile, the middle zone, from5,000 to 11,500 feet, is covered with good pas-ture, upon which the Kurdish sheep and goatherders depend.

Mount Ararat is about equidistant from theBlack Sea and the Caspian, the Mediterraneanand the Persian Gulf. Around Mount Araratgather many traditions connected with the Del-uge. Col. Koor, the Russian soldier-archeologist,lists some 20 such archeological sites whichshould be investigated.

Both the ice cap and the resulting glaciersmove over rough terrain, which breaks theminto segments, separated by crevasses. Oftennew falls of snow drift over these crevasses,thus hiding them from view. Climbers some-times fall into them. In 1965, a 21 year oldOxford student tried to climb the mountainalone, and was never again heard from. It waspresumed that he fell into a crevass. The yearbefore an Austrian doctor was separated fromhis party in a blinding snow storm, and searchparties were unable to find him. It has beenthought that he too suffered the same fate. Our

7

Figure 2. General geography of Ararat region.

mountain climbers never climbed the mountainin less than groups of three tied together withnylon ropes. Even so, two of them actually fellinto crevasses, but were pulled free by theircompanions.

The dangers are many. Storms of wind of 100miles an hour and temperatures of below zeromade life disagreeable for our glaciologists. Also,our geologists were caught out on the mountainin a thunder-storm in pelting sleet and rain, andthe ensuing fog made it difficult for them to findtheir way back to camp late at night, soakingwet, cold and exhausted. Without a good senseof direction and a flashlight, they might havebeen “victims” of Ararat.

Tradition places the Garden of Eden in thevalley of the Aras river; Marand is the burialplace of Noah’s wife; at Ahora (Aghuri) was thespot where Noah planted his first vineyard. In-

cidentally, we noticed this summer that a vine-yard is still located there. Here was also situatedthe monastery of St. James, until both it and thevillage of Ahora were destroyed in 1940 by anearthquake and resulting avalanche, which camethundering down Ahora gulch.

James Bryce, the British statesman, author,and later ambassador to Washington onceclimbed Mount Ararat, and he wrote of his ex-periences in a book, Transcaucasia and Ararat,

I know of nothing so sublime as the generalaspect of this huge yet graceful mass seen fromthe surrounding plains: no view which fillsthe beholder with a profounder sense of gran-deur and space than that which is unfolded,when, on climbing its lofty side he sees thefar-reaching slopes beneath, and the boundlesswaste of mountains beyond, spread out underhis eye. Its very simplicity of both form and

8

color increases its majesty. All lines leadstraight up to the towering, snowy summit.There can be but few places in the world whereso lofty a peak soars so suddenly from a plainso low, and consequently few views equallygrand . . . the mountain raises itself solitaryand solemn out of a wide sea-like plain.

StructureThe structural trends of eastern Turkey are

in a northwest, southeast direction, such as theAras river flowage, and the “lining-up” of thetriple volcanic peaks, Alagoz, on the Russian sideof the Aras river, and Greater Ararat and LesserArarat, in Turkey. These triple peaks are in aline, because that is the direction of strike ofthe elongated fault in the basement complexup through which the molten magma flowed.

If the fractures are shallow, as in the August19, 1966 quake, no lava is emitted, but whenthe fault extends many miles deep, it taps thearea where the temperature exceeds the meltingpoint of basalt, about 1,200 degrees Centigrade.The fault or fracture relieves the surface pres-sure, and the hydrostatic pressure forces theliquid magma to the surface, much as oil isblown out when an oil gusher is drilled.

The Tendurek mountains to the west andsouthwest of Ararat are also volcanic extrusionsalong faults parallel to the Alagoz-Ararat faultlines, and are part of the complex fault systemwhich winds and twists in a generally north-south lineament through the Dead Sea in Pale-stine and across the Red Sea into eastern Africa,comprising what is known as the East AfricanRift. This fault or rift is signalized by volcanismand block-faulting, indicating tension faults.

The Dead Sea, about 1,300 feet below sea-level and the deepest land depression on earth,is a graben, or fault-block, that has droppeddown when the tension drew the crust apart. Ifollowed the most recent fault for some 50 milesfrom Varto, the epicenter of the August 19quake, to a point between Erzurum and Ararat.

This most recent faulting, which caused thesevere earthquake, which wrecked the city ofVarto and caused some 2,000 deaths, was minorin displacement as compared with the scarsleft by the earlier faulting which took placepresumably at or soon after the Flood period.The recent rift caused a displacement of merefeet, while the “original” fracture zone wasprobably miles wide in places, and furnished achannel-way up through which flowed mountainsof magma. This may have taken place at thetime of the volcanism which formed the Alagoz-Ararat mountain chain.

Apparently the Paleozoic-Mesozoic limestonecomplex which covered parts of the region was

severely deformed, compressed, folded, and inplaces like the Ararat area domed up when therising magma burst through. This doming ef-fect is most evident when one views the samelimestone formation on all sides of Mount Ararat.The beds dip away from the mountain onthe Turkish, the Russian, and the Persian (Iran-ian) sides.

There were several eras of volcanic events.Professor Nazmi Oruc of Ataturk University atErzurum told me that his soil sample studyfrom well drillings in the Aras valley showedat least three periods of volcanism, the layersof lava being interbedded with sediments.

West-southwest of Ararat and west of Diyadinoccurs a thick bed of basalt overlaid with lime-stone, apparently conformable. A river flowsthrough the limestone, and the latter has beenfolded into an anticline which has fracturedalong the axis. This fracture has permittedground water to penetrate down to the lime-stone-lava contact.

The lava was apparently not very cool, whenthe limestone was laid down, for it heated thewater to the boiling point, and the steam pressurehas forced steady geysers to shoot from thesurface. This water flows down the sides of thegeyserite or tufa and is caught in pools similarto the hot water pools in Yellowstone Park.

Some of these pools are just the right tem-perature for bathing, and are usually put tosuch use. This hot springs tufa is varicoloredlike that in Yellowstone. Local Turkish author-ities hope eventually to make a park or nationalmonument of this hot springs-geyser area.

The orogeny of the hot springs bespeaks fasttectonic activity, catacylsmic action. and doesnot fit long-ages geology. Seemingly, basalticextrusion was quickly followed by deposition oflimestone before the hot lava cooled. If thislimestone, designated Cretaceus, was laid downsome hundred million years ago, surely the lavawould have lost its heat long ago, for the lime-stone covering the basalt is not very thick. Infact one wonders how it could have retained itsheat this long even if the rock was formed atthe time of the Flood!

The Genesis record tells us that, early inCreation week, the whole earth was coveredwith water similar to the flooding by the Deluge;the difference being that the whole earth wasoriginally almost a perfect globe, without moun-tains and ocean basins. There was less waterthen to cover the earth than now.

Then, the record tells us, the Creator formedthe ocean basins, and dry land by diastrophismor uplift. The water ran off the land into thebasins; as most geologists agree that the oceanbasins existed from earliest times. We are not

9

informed how high the continental cratons ormountains were, but presumably not as highas now. Genesis mentions rivers; among them isthe Euphrates, which rises not too far fromMount Ararat. A river drainage system needshigh land for its source.

Evidence gathered at Mount Ararat indicatesthat the original mountain was much lower thanthe present one and was of different composi-tion or at least of different texture and differentcolor. The metrological differences will be dis-cussed later, but the original Mount Ararat ap-parently was not more than from 10,000 to 12,000feet in height. The present peak is about 17,000feet, and at its greatest height perhaps measurednearer 20,000 feet. Erosion has worn it down.

During the Flood period—in the broad sense—at least three blankets of basaltic or andesiticlava were extruded over the first Ararat. Vol-canic eruptions have taken place periodicallyever since, but with subsiding activity. Morerecent flows have been extruded from crackslower down on the mountain as each succeedingextrusion had less force than the preceding one.

Ararat is known as a shield type of volcano.This section would not be complete without

mentioning what was perhaps the most violenteruption associated with Ararat. This did notoccur in 1840 as some have surmized, it was in-finitely more terrific. Very likely some time afterthe flood-waters had subsided, almost the wholenorth-east side of the mountain blew up. Along deep gash was opened in the mountain,known now as the Ahora gulch. This is manymiles long and thousands of feet deep and wide,and a conservative estimate would be that fromone to two cubic miles of rock debris and vol-canic ash was blown from the mountain.

Large surface fragments were hurled milesaway down toward the lower slopes of thenorth-east side, where they are yet visible.Lighter volcanic ash was blown into the upperatmosphere and settled down as light-coloredwhitish tuff on the east and north-east sides ofthe mountain.

This ash covered some 100 square miles ofsurface to a thickness of from hundreds of feetnear the mountain to a few feet, ten miles away.Thus, a sloping pediment of some 3-5 degreeswas formed, which is similiar to those seen inthe desert Southwest in Arizona. As a result,varied rock specimens of the whole Ararat areaare found in the Ahora gulch.

This is the type of volcanic eruption thatburied Pompei and Herculaneum. PresumablyNoah and his family had left the area by thattime. The original Ararat had been deeplyblanketed before that, and the only part of theoriginal Ararat now exposed is that at the head

of the Ahora Gulch where the giant explosionopened it up.

Little Ararat and other parasite cones are ofmore recent origin, for Little Ararat is smootherand less gullied and eroded than Greater Ararat.The only forests in the whole area are located onthe eastern slopes of Little Ararat.

StratigraphyAbich and others in the past have done strati-

graphic studies in the limestone formations ofeastern Turkey. They identified index fossilsand others belonging to late Paleozoic, mainlyPermian; also Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceusof the Mesozoic, besides some of the earlyTertiary. The following are Abich’s classifica-tions, taken from theDevonian, gray

limestone:

Mississippian, denselimestone:

Pennsylvanian, darklimestone:

Permian, limestone,shale:

Triassic, limestone,dolomite:

Jurassic: (Ammonites)

Cretaceus:

Eocene:

Oligocene:Pliocene:

Dogubayazit-Igdir area:Atrypa reticularisAtrypa asperaSpiriferseminoiProductus auritusDalamella michelliniFusulina verneuiliProductus intermediusFusculinella lenicularisGoniatites albichianusReticulariaSpirigeraZaphrentis lepticonicaXenodiscus-Arten.Pseudomonotis-ArtenParatirolites-ArtenGoniatites abichianusSoninia sowerbyiLytoceras mediter-

raneumSphaeroceras bullatumMortoniceras texanumParapachydiscus neu-

bergeriCyclasteraturicusDiscocyclina archiaeiNummulites irregularisAsterodiscusNummulites incrassatusPlanorbisClupea lanceoplataCardium protractumTapes greganusOrbicella defrancei

These fossils are all invertebrates.

PetrologyAs already mentioned, Eastern Turkey lith-

ologically consists mainly of two types of rock,Paleozoic and Mesozoic limestone intruded by

10

volcanic rock, much of it being an andesitic-basaltic complex on the borderline betweenandesite and basalt. For that reason it is notpracticable to map off certain parts of the moun-tain as basaltic and other parts as andesitic,since composition varies from place to place,not permitting a mapable unit.

The central highlands of Turkey consist inlarge part of a whitish limestone interspersedwith volcanic rocks. The eastern part of thecountry is mainly volcanic, interspersed withlimestone.

Many of the faults cutting through the moun-tain of Ararat have been filled with a red in-trusive rock that resembles a sandstone, butstrangely enough is of essentially the same com-position as the black and gray basalt and an-desite, the difference being that the black mag-netite has been oxidized to a red goethite. Fol-lowing is a typical mineralogical composition:

Sample No. 1augite 3% rimmed with geothitehypersthene 5% rimed with geothiteandesine ( 55) 52%glass 40% partly devitrifiedmagnetite trace

The augite is a triclinic pyroxene, while hy-persthene is orthorhombic in crystal structure.These pyroxenes are more typical of basalt thanandesite, but the plagioclase is andesine, fromwhich the rock andesite gets its name. The highpercentage of glass indicates that the rock wasquickly “frozen” or cooled, so that solidificationtook place quickly, too fast for crystals to form.

Sample No. 2 was a gray-black rock takenfrom the 12,000 foot level to the north of theAhora Gulch. The mineral composition isstrangely like sample No. 1, although macro-scopically it does not much resemble it.

Sample No. 2augite 1%hypersthene 10%andesine (43) 87%magnetite 1%apatite trace(Apatite is a phosphorus oxide)

As alluded to in the section on Structure, theAhora gulch exposes the inner core of the origi-nal mountain which is distinct in color and tex-ture from the volcanic rock. It is coarse-grainedporphyry with a light buff color and much pyrite.This indicates a deep-seated intrusive that cooledslowly, permitting the coarse phenocrysts toform first. Then the whole mass was upliftedthrough the cover-rock, allowing the remainderof the magma to cool more quickly and formfine grained crystals and glass. This inner core

may represent the original mountain datingfrom Creation. Sample No. 3 was collected fromseveral places in the Ahora Gulch.

Sample No. 3 Andesite porphyrybastite 5% (replaces a pyroxene)glass trace (inclusions in plagioclase)hypersthene trace (poikolitic inclusionsin plagioclase)andesine 50 94%sphene traceleucoxene traceapatite trace

Sample No. 4 is also a sample from the Ahoragulch from the inner core of the mountain. Itsmineralogy is similiar.

Sample No. 4augite 4%hypersphene 10%andesine (55) 30%(rims are andesine 50)magnetite 2%glass 53%apatite trace

Sample No. 5 is also from the same source asthe two previous, but the rock is a basalt ratherthan an andesite, because the plagioclase ismore basic-labradorite.

Sample No. 5 Basalt-porphyryaugite 1%hypersthene 3%labradorite 35%glass 56%hematite 5%

These samples are typical, and it would notbe necessary to give details on more samples.

Catacylsmic Flood GeologyMount Ararat is easily associated with the Ark

of Noah and the Flood in the thoughts of manypeople. Often the question is asked, What evi-dences, if any, are found around the mountain tosubstantiate the flood concept?

The answer would be that, if the flood wasworld-wide as we believe ample evidence in-dicates, then we should find such evidences notonly around Mount Ararat but most anywhere.However, since this paper is an outline in brief ofsome of the main points of the geology of theArarat area, I will attempt to point out a fewevidences of the flood which were identified inthe summer of 1966.

One such evidence has been described con-cerning the geysers and hot springs west ofDiyadin. (See section on Structure) In time past,these geysers were apparently much more active,as volcanic activity was greater in times past.

11

Some lava was perhaps poured out under waterwhile the flood was at its height, for stresseswere built up in the crust of the earth, as it wasput out of isostatic balance due to the shiftingof sediments from one place to another.

The Hawaiian Islands were built up from thebottom of the ocean, some 14,000 feet deep, byvolcanic extrusion. When lava is extruded underwater it is cooled quickly and solidifies so rapidlythat crystals often have no time to form, likeobsidian; or very small crystals are formed,

Much of the basalt and andesite composingupper Ararat was of this type. The lava is oftenfound in rounded blocks called pillow lava. be-cause they are of pillow-like appearance havingconchoidal fractures. Much of the basalt onArarat had semi-circular fractures, typical ofunderwater extrusion. When did the watersreach the 14,000 foot level on Mount Ararat?

There is the puzzle of the upturned limestonebeds surrounding Mount Ararat, on the Turkish,Russian and Persian sides. Near the city ofDogubayazit these limestone formations, some1000 feet in thickness are tilted from as much as45 degrees with respect to the horizontal toalmost vertical. The true cause is apparent, al-though others have not apparently sensed it. Thestrata dip away from Mount Ararat on every sidejust as the surface dirt crust does when a seed-ling bursts up through.

Evidently Mount Ararat burst up through thelimestone beds to form a near 20,000 footpeak or series of them; and, thus, providedshelter for the Ark from the tempestuous storm,as the waters began to recede. The Genesis ac-count says that strong winds blew to dry up theflood waters. If the standard geologic columnis right, then these limestone formations werelaid down some 100,000,000 years before MountArarat came into existence, at a time when thegreatest land inundation from the sea took place.For that reason, I wonder if perhaps the Cre-taceus period and the Flood may not be syn-onomous? And, carrying the comparison a bitfurther, would that not place Creation week wayback in the Precambrian? We, of course havepresented our reasons for not accepting the va-lidity of orthodox time scales, such as 100,000,000years in earlier issues of Creation Research So-ciety publications.

According to Genesis geology, we couldscarcely visualize a universal deluge betweenCreation and the Flood, for the Euphrates valley,we believe, was the cradle of civilization. Lime-stone is precipitated under water; therefore,such sedimentary rock must have been laiddown during the inundation of the earth bythe flood waters–the early part perhaps–sinceMount Ararat was apparently elevated to its

full height during the latter period of the flood,to provide the above mentioned haven for theArk. There are small peaks on the top of GreaterArarat, which might well have provided thathaven.

This may not sound so much like fancifulspeculation when one reads some recent findingsof the Lamont geological observatory at Colum-bia University. The New York Times NewsService for Jan. 3, 1967, reported:

The findings also concern a layer of sediment1,000 feet thick beneath the floor of the At-lantic. It apparently has lain undisturbedfor 70 million years . . . The layer across theAtlantic floor appears to be a relic of a cat-aclysmic occurrence at the end of the Cre-taceus period, 70 million years ago. Duringthe Cretaceus, oceans covered much of thepresent-day continents. Toward the end ofthe period the land rose out of the sea (or theseas subsided). Water cascading off the landcarried sediment that was laid down in thedeep basins. This may account for the deepburied layer.If we but substitute the word “Flood” for

“Cretaceus” in the above statement, the LamontGeological observatory has given a very graphic,and presumably accurate, picture of just whathappened at the close of the flood-period. Wecan detect fracture patterns running across theocean bottoms, which may have been deepenedto make room for the flood waters “cascading”off the continents. Greater deepening of theocean basins was probably compensated for bya corresponding rise in the height of the conti-nental blocks. Findings of ocean floor researchare described in the December 2, 1966 issue ofScience.

As the waters further subsided, isolatedepeiric-seas were formed by arms of land cuttingoff small bodies of water from the ocean. Asthe winds of hurricane force dried up these in-land seas, salt was precipitated. I examinedone such salt mine a few miles north-west ofMount Ararat. The salt was laid down in layersexactly as the limestone and sandstone andshale were, interbedded with thin layers of siltand dust.

After the salt was precipitated, the wind evi-dently blew dust over the salt layer, then astronger gale may have caused a tidal wave tobring in a fresh flooding of the basin. Then,as the winds died down, evaporating wateragain precipitated a new layer of salt. I countedas many as fifteen to twenty such layers in oneplace.

Such surges of water can be attested to by twomountaineers in the expedition. They werecamping somewhat below the bottom end of

12

the glacier that flows down the bottom of theAhora gulch. They were rudely awakened bya terrific roar from above when the glacier abovethe gulch broke loose, and some 100,000 tons ofice and rock came cascading down almost towhere the men were camping. Needless to saythey hastily moved their camp to safer ground.

The top of Mount Ararat, down to about the14,000 foot level, is permanently ice-capped.This means the cap is a static entity; as thesnow continues to fall, the ice-cap builds up.As a consequence of this build-up, ice “flows”outward as a Rheid; that is, a material that undercontinued pressure flows like a viscous fluid.

As the Ararat ice cap flows outward in all di-rections it divides into about a dozen fingers orglaciers flowing down various canyons. As istypical of all glaciers, the Ararat glaciers areeroding agents, carrying tremendous quantitiesof rock debris from higher to lower levels. Thismeans that each year the total height of Araratis a little bit lower than the previous year. Ifwe knew the annual rate of erosion, we mightbe in a position to estimate the altitude of Araratat the time of the Flood.

Scientists from the United States GeologicalSurvey have found that glaciers in Alaska haveno fixed rate of advance; that sudden surgescause what they call “catastrophic advances,” atspeeds from 10 to 100 times the normal rate.The normal flow is usually stated as from oneto two feet per day. “The cause of these surgesis not completely understood,” said Dr. MarkF. Meier, research geologist at the U.S. Geo-logical Survey office, Tacoma, Washington.

SummaryEastern Turkey consists of a relatively barren,

undeveloped area, quite without tree cover.Tectonically, it is very active, and unstable struc-turally. The region has been folded, faulted, andintruded with basic types of volcanic rock, suchas andesite and basalt.

Previously the cover rocks had been Paleozoicand Mesozoic limestone, but these have beeneroded, folded and faulted by frequent orogenicactivity, forming volcanic mountains, amongwhich are the Tendurek range, and also theAlagoz-Ararat system. These mountains arefound along fault lines which provided channelsthrough which molten magmas flowed from deepzones in the earth’s crust, or upper mantle, wherethe temperature is well above that of the meltingpoint of basalt, about 1,200 degrees Centigradeat one atmosphere pressure. (At depth, the hy-drostatic pressure greatly raises the meltingpoint of rock).

On the north and east of Ararat lies the ArasRiver fault block, at about 2,500 feet to 3,000feet elevation as compared with the Dogubaya-zit (southwest) side of Ararat at about 5,000feet. The rim of Ararat around the mountainforms a depression ring or “moat” of marshyland, not well drained. Perhaps this was causedby a “collapse cauldron.” That is, after a volcanoattains its greatest height of activity, the magmasettles back into the “bowels of the earth,” leav-ing an empty void, which recedes to lower levels,like the terrain around Long Beach California,after Signal Hill was drained of oil.

The original core of Ararat was andesitic andbasalt porphyry. During and since the floodperiod, the total height was raised thousandsof feet by successive cycles of volcanic extrusion.

The Mount Ararat region contains abundantevidences of cataclysmic geologic activity, aswell as signs of the complete inundation ofMount Ararat and the whole area by floodwaters.

BibliographyAbich. H., “Die Besteigung des Ararat im Jahre 1845,”

Boitrage z. Kenntuis d. russischen Reiches. St. Peters-burg, 1849.

Blumenthal, M., “Der Vulcan Ararat,” Rev. Fac ScUniv. Instanbul, Series B, Tome XXIII, No. 3-4,1958.

Parrot, F. Reise zum Ararat. Berlin, 1840.

13

DNA: ITS HISTORY AND POTENTIALD R. DUANE T. GI S H

Research Associate in Biochemistry, The Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, Michigan

A brief history of the discovery of nucleic acid is given.Specificity of DNA synthesis is amazing and the sequence of amino acids in proteins as a

result of DNA coding is most precise. Rather than being the master chemical, DNA is the servantof the cell. Thus its operation is repressed by the cell until needed.

Reasons for not being carried away by false hope of altering genes controlling our own bodyand mental traits are given, most important of which is lack of specificity of any irradiation orchemical mutagen. These all tend to be random in their effect. Thus we cannot “tell” a nitriteion which of about 2500 adenine bases it should change to guanine.

As we continue to learn more of the complexity of the DNA-RNA system we should be evermore impressed by Psalm 139:14, "Man is fearfully and wonderfully made.” Surely such a com-plexly integrated system could only have been created by a wisdom far superior to our own.Unbelieving man, willfully stubborn, prefers to believe this marvelous system could have evolvedfrom properties inherent in the neutron. How much more reasonable to accept the clear procla-mation "In the beginning God created . . .“

First isolation of nucleic acid from the nucleiof cells, now known as deoxyribonucleic acid(DNA), was accomplished by a medically-trained Swiss physiological chemist, FriedrichMiescher, in 1869.1 This work was performedin the laboratory of Hoppe-Seyler at Tubingen.Hoppe-Seyler was one of the outstanding chem-ists of that era, and Miescher’s accomplishmentwas so significant that Hoppe-Seyler held uppublication of results for two years until Mie-scher’s work could be fully confirmed.

Because of their availability, Miescher usedpus cells from discarded bandages as his sourceof cells. He first isolated the cell nuclei, andfrom these he extracted a grey-white powderwhich he later called “nuclein.”

Miescher next turned to the sperm of Rhinesalmon as a source of nuclein. He isolated whathe recognized as a salt-like compound formedby the combination of a nitrogen-rich base anda phosphorus-rich acid, his nuclein. The basehe called protamin”, and he developed a methodfor isolating it. The purified nuclein had a phos-phorus content of 9.6%, and after acid hydroly-sis, all of the phosphorus was recovered in theform of phosphoric acid.

Miescher also investigated sperm of frogs,carp, and bulls. He detected nuclein in all ofthem. He pointed out that nuclein seemed tobe the genetically active chemical which hadbeen postulated as being present in spermatozoa.

From about 1875, other workers became ac-tive in this field, and by 1900 all of the majorbases which occur in nucleic acid had been iso-lated. Later it became apparent that there weretwo types of nucleic acid, differing in origin andcomposition. The nucleic acid from yeast orfrom wheat embryo was hydrolyzed to yield fourbases, adenine, guanine, cytosine and uracil,

phosphoric acid and a sugar identified in 1909by Levene as the pentose, ribose.

From thymus was isolated the other type ofnucleic acid, from which was obtained the fourbases, adenine, guanine, cytosine, and thymine,phosphoric acid and a pentose sugar identifiedby Levene in 1930 as deoxyribose. Today thetype of nuleic acid containing the base, uracil,and the sugar, ribose, is known as ribonucleicacid (RNA), and the other type containingthymine and deoxyribose is known as deoxy-ribonucleic acid (DNA).

During the decade 1940-1950, results indicatedthat DNA is almost always found in the cellnucleus as part of the chromosomes, while RNAis mainly found in cytoplasm. It is now knownthat cell nuclei, as well as the cytoplasm, con-tain both DNA and RNA. It was found thatnucleic acid is a polymer consisting of thou-sands of sub-units. These sub-units are callednucleotides. The nucleotides are composed

Figure 1. Adenylic acid, a nucleotide.

14

of a base, either a purine or a pyrimidine,linked to a sugar, either ribose or deoxyribose,depending upon the type of nucleic acid, andthe sugar in turn is linked to phosphoric acid.One such nucleotide, adenylic acid, is shown inFigure 1.

The sub-units, or nucleotides, of nucleic acidare joined through phospho di-ester bonds, thephosphate being combined with the 3’-hydroxylof one sugar and the 5’-hydroxyl of the sugarof the adjacent unit. This “backbone” structureis shown schematically in Figure 2.

Molecular weight values range up to 2,000,000or more for RNA (tobacco mosaic virus RNAcontains about 6600 nucleotides and has amolecular weight of 2,000,000) to 10,000,000and higher for DNA.

The almost forgotten suggestion by Miescherthat nucleic acid might play a central role ininheritance was confirmed by Avery and co-workers in 19442. They extracted DNA from“smooth” or encapsulated pneumococcus bacteriaand added it to the culture of “rough” or unen-capsulated pneumococci. A new generation of“smooth” bacteria was produced which con-tinued to produce the “smooth” type. The DNAfrom the “smooth” type had been incorporatedinto the genetic material of the “rough” type,converting it permanently to the “smooth” type.This established that genes are composed ofDNA. This event gave great impetus to re-search into all aspects of DNA.

In 1950, Chargaff3 recorded the fact thatamong the bases of DNA the amount of adeninewas always equal to thymine and guaninewas always equal to cytosine (in molar quanti-ties). This observation provided one of the keysto the structure proposed for DNA in 1953 byWatson and Crick. In that year, Watson andCrick 4, combining the data of Chargaff andX-ray crystallographic data, proposed for DNAthe structure that is now widely accepted.

Watson-Crick ModelAccording to the proposal of Watson and

Crick, DNA exists in the form of a double-stranded helix, the two helical chains being

coiled about a common axis. They proposed thatone chain of the double helix is the complementof the other, with adenine in each chain pairingwith thymine of the other, and guanine in eachchain pairing with cytosine of the other. Thetwo chains of the double helix are held togetherby hydrogen bonds between the purine bases(adenine and guanine) and the pyrimidine bases(cytosine and thymine).

A purine is always paired with a pyrimidine,because two purines would occupy too muchspace to allow a regular helix, and two pyrimi-dines would occupy too little. Because of stereo-chemical relationships, adenine always pairs withthymine and guanine with cytosine. The basepairing of a section of two complementary DNAstrands is shown in Figure 3.

From the structure proposed for DNA im-plications could be drawn concerning its repli-cation by the cell. These implications were pub-lished by Watson and Crick5 a few months aftertheir paper on the structure of DNA.

They proposed that prior to replication, thehydrogen bonds holding the double-strandedhelix of DNA together are broken, and the twochains unwind and separate. Each chain thenacts as a template for the formation onto itselfof a new complementary chain, so that eventu-ally two pairs of chains are formed where onlyone existed before.

After the two original strands have separated,along each of these intact chains are assembledfree nucleotides (these nucleotides at this stageare in the form of triphosphates). This assem-blage takes place according to the base pairingpattern described above. That is, every place inthe intact chain where adenine occurs, a nucleo-tide containing thymine will become loosely at-tached by hydrogen bonds; where guanine oc-curs in the intact chain, the nucleotide containingcytosine will become attached by hydrogenbonds, etc.

When the nucleotides have been assembled inplace along the intact chain, the enzyme DNApolymerase joins the free nucleotides together byforming regular chemical bonds between themto form the new DNA strand. The result is a

Figure 2. Schematic representation of nucleotide arrangement in nucleic acid.

15

Figure 3. Base pairing in DNA (A=adenine, G=guanine, T=thymine, C=cytosine).

double-stranded DNA helix, one strand havingbeen derived intact from the previously existingDNA and the second having been formed fromthe nucleotide sub-units.

DNA Replicated by CellIt should be pointed out here that DNA does

not replicate itself. It is replicated by the cell.DNA does furnish important information for itsreplication in the form of the sequence of itsindividual nucleotides, but the complex appa-ratus in the cell is required to synthesize copiesof DNA. The cell synthesizes the sub-units ornucleotides that are polymerized to form DNA.

The cell, through the complex apparatus de-signed for this purpose, supplies the energy re-quired for the synthesis to take place. A certainconcentration of magnesium is required and, ofcourse, the presence of the enzyme DNA poly-merase, in the absence of which no synthesiswould take place, is an absolute necessity.

Here evolutionists are faced with a dilemma,The presence of a protein, the enzyme DNApolymerase, is indispensible for the synthesis ofDNA. On the other hand, the information re-quired for the synthesis of all proteins is con-tained in DNA. In an evolutionary scheme,which could have come first? Protein is requiredfor DNA synthesis, and DNA is required forprotein synthesis. Which preceded the other?The best answer seems to be that neither arosebefore the other, but both have existed togetherfrom the very beginning.

It is now believed that most genetic infor-mation resides in DNA. This information iscontained in the form of a “genetic code” builtinto the DNA molecule. This genetic code isfashioned from the sequence of the bases inDNA. What this code is, and how this infor-mation is transmitted so that a protein with afixed and specific structure is synthesized, Iwill not attempt to explain here. Nevertheless,there is a message built into each DNA molecule,and this message is used to dictate the structureof every other molecule in the cell.

Complexity of ApparatusI must emphasize the extreme complexity of

the apparatus required to transfer the messageor code in a structural gene into a specific proteinmolecule:

The code in the gene (which is DNA, ofcourse) is used to construct a messenger RNA

molecule in which is encoded the messagenecessary to determine the specific amino acidsequence of the protein.The cell must synthesize the sub-units (nuc-leotides) for the RNA (after first synthesiz-ing the sub-units for each nucleotide, whichinclude the individual bases and the ribose).The cell must synthesize the sub-units, oramino acids which are eventually polymerizedto form the protein. Each amino acid mustbe activated by an enzyme specific for thatamino acid. Each amino acid is then com-bined with another type of RNA, known assoluble RNA or s-RNA.There is a specific s-RNA for each individualamino acid. There is yet another type of RNAknown as ribosomal RNA. Under the influenceof the messenger RNA, the ribosomes are as-sembled into units known as polyribosomes.Under the direction of the message con-tained in the messenger RNA while it is incontact with polyribosomes, the amino acid-s-RNA complexes are used to form the protein.Other enzymes and key molecules are requiredfor this.During all of this, the complex energy pro-ducing apparatus of the cell is used to fur-nish the energy required for the many syn-theses.A brief description as the one above may

leave one more confused than enlightened, yetit does emphasize the tremendously complex ap-paratus that is required to synthesize a proteinmolecule in the living cell. Four types of nucleicacid are involved–DNA, messenger RNA, sol-uble RNA, and ribosomal RNA. In the synthesisproper, about 30 different enzymes are involved,and if we include the synthesis of the sub-unitsand of the energy producing apparatus, hun-dreds of different enzymes are required.

The specificity of the synthesis is amazing.The sequence of the sub-units, or amino acids,in each protein molecule is very definite andprecise. Along the complex pathway from DNAto protein molecule, which involves the in-teraction of many different molecules and in-cludes passage from the nucleus to the cyto-plasm, where polyribosomes are found, the codecontained in the DNA is perfectly transcribedinto the structure of the protein molecule.

The DNA serves two purposes in the cell.In DNA is encoded the information which, on

1 6

demand of the cell, is converted by the cell intothe message necessary for the production ofother complex molecules and structures of thecell. The DNA also serves as the genetic unit ofthe cell, its replication serving as the means oftransferring to the daughter cell all of the in-formation encoded in the parent DNA.

DNA: Master or Servant?What of DNA? Is it the “master chemical,”

the “secret of life?” Is it true, as claimed byJukes6, that “the purpose of life is the perpetua-tion of a base sequence?” It seems inescapableto me that DNA, rather than being the masterof the cell, is the servant of the cell. DNA is keptunder strict regulation by the cell. Its opera-tion or message is repressed by the cell untilneeded. Derepression follows, and when theneed for the message, or the molecule producedby this message, is no longer needed, the geneis once more repressed.

When the cell replicates, and before celldivision takes place, it reproduces a second setof DNA molecules and from this constructs asecond set of chromosomes. The parent cellutilizes its replication of DNA to pass on to thedaughter cell the genetic information containedin the parent cell. While DNA occupies a keyposition in the cell, it is only one of many im-portant features of the cell. Commoner7 hasaptly stated that, rather than DNA being thesecret of life, “life is the secret of DNA.”

Williams 8 stated in his review of Juke’s book,mentioned above, that in this book we havewitnessed “the deification of a molecule.” Thereis a widespread tendency today among scientistsand laymen alike to prostrate themselves beforean altar upon which is enshrined DNA.

Many believe that the solving of the geneticcode will open up a marvelous new future forman whereby he will be able to “control hisown evolution.” Such a belief rests in ignorance.The solving of the genetic code would eliminateonly one of many problems involved in under-standing how the numerous features of life areuniquely determined. Even if we understoodall of this, how to alter DNA specifically in orderto bring about a desirable change would re-main an insuperable difficulty.

The first problem involved in altering ourgenetic make-up is the fact that the carriers ofthe genes, the chromosomes, are located in thenuclei of the egg and sperm cells. In order tosubject this material to treatment, some meansmust be devised for removing it from the eggor sperm and replacing it, after treatment, withretention of viability by the egg or sperm.

Today we have some understanding about therelative positions of a few of the many thou-

sands of genes in some microorganisms. By theirlinkage we can determine whether or not theyoccupy adjacent positions on the chromosome.We do not have the slightest idea where theiractual positions on the chromosome are, how-ever, and have no way at present of determiningthis. Even if we knew which gene is which,how could one particular gene be separatedfrom among the tens of thousands present?

If, in the future, we could devise a methodfor removing a particular gene for treatment inorder to alter it, several practical impossibilitieswould yet stand in the way of altering ourgenetic properties selectively.

In each gene there are thousands of nucleo-tides, or sub-units. A change in only one ofthese thousands of sub-units causes profoundchanges in the genetic properties of the gene.We do not have the slightest idea, however,what effect on an organism will be caused bya specific change at some point in the gene.

In a recent series of newspaper articles, Pro-fessor James Bonner of the California Instituteof Technology was quoted as saying that in thefuture man will so control his own genetics that,for instance, if a person wants four arms, he canhave four arms. Some of his speculations evenwent beyond this.

If we alter one of the genes governing thearms, however, what do we get—four arms,short arms, long arms, or no arms at all? Thealmost certain result would be some cripplingeffect, for in spite of the claims of evolutionists.all mutations are in the nature of injuries. Ifman ever begins to tinker with his genes, he hadbetter construct many additional institutions tohouse the monsters that result.

It could also be pointed out that most, if notall, of our characteristics are polygenetic, thatis, they are under the control of not one but anumber of genes. For instance, eye color inDrosophila is under the control of 15 genes. Thedesirable alteration of a certain characteristic,if that is possible at all, most likely would requirechanges in more than one particular gene. Pre-cisely coordinated changes in several geneswould probably be required.

Great Difficulty RemainsIf all the above problems were solved, which

seems incredible, one insuperable difficultywould yet remain. In each gene there are thou-sands of nucleotides, but only four differentkinds of bases. In a gene of 10,000 nucleotides,there would be, on the average, 2500 of each ofthe four different kinds of bases.

Let us say we knew that to bring about a spe-cific desirable change, we had to change theadenine, at position 5263 of the chain, to a

17

guanine. If a chemical or irradiation or someother kind of treatment were used, how couldthe effect of that treatment be limited to posi-tion 5263 without affecting one of the other2499 adenines in this DNA? It could not.

Chemical action, irradiation, or other mu-tagenic treatments are completely random ineffect. We cannot “tell” a nitrite ion which baseto attack. Since these treatments are by theirvery nature random in effect, it is obvious thatthey can never be utilized to bring about a spe-cific change in the genetic material.

Other possible means of altering genetic prop-erties could be discussed with much the sameresults. In spite of the bold claims of Dr. Bonnerand others, man will have to get along with thetwo arms he has, as well as with the other fea-tures with which he is endowed. Man is “fear-fully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14),the product of the Master Planner. If we canlearn to preserve that creation in reasonably goodhealth for three score and ten, we will do well.

As we learn more and more about DNA andhow it functions in the cell, we should view thisgreat master plan with awesome wonder. Itscomplexities and intricacies are beyond our com-prehension; the results of the plan, marvelous.

Who is it that conceived and brought this intobeing? Unbelieving man, willingly ignorant, pre-fers to believe it was inherent in the propertiesof the neutron. It seems to me immeasurablymore reasonable to accept the clear proclamationof Scripture, “In the beginning God created. . . .”.The purpose of life is not, as Jukes claims, toperpetuate a base sequence, but the purpose ofDNA is to perpetuate life.

References1For historical reviews of the chemistry of DNA see

The Biological Role of the Nucleic Acids, D. Cohen,American Elsevier Publishing Co., Inc., New York, 1965,and Nucleic Acid Outlines, Volume I, V. R. Potter,Burgess Publishing Co., Minneapolis, 1960.

2O. T. Avery, C. M. MacLeod, and M. McCarty, J. Exp.Med., 79, 137 ( 1944).

3E. Chargaff, Experientia, 6, 201 (1950).4J. D. Watson and F. H C. Crick, Nature, 171, 737

(1953).5J. D. Watson and F. H. C. Crick, Nature, 171, 964

(1953).6T. H. Jukes, Molecules and Evolution, Columbia Uni-

versity Press, New York, 1966.7B. Commoner, Nature, 202, 960 (1964).8C. A. Williams, Science, 155, 308 (1967).

18

SOME MOLECULAR APPROACHES TO TAXONOMYDR. WAYNE FRAIR

The King’s College, Briarcliff, N. Y., 10510

A method for studying the proteins of various turtles is given, based essentially on productionof antiserums by injection of turtle blood into rabbits or chickens. When mixed with serial dilu-tions of serum from various species of turtles, varying degrees of turbidity or precipitation areobtained. These results are shown to have a definite taxonomic value and do not support thepresent widely-held position that snapping turtles belong to a separate family related to the Kino-sternidae, but rather are in the Emydid family group.

A method of comparing DNA of various species by studying the amount of pairing of DNAstrands in agar in relation to a standard “reference” DNA is described. Since DNA consists ofan “alphabet” of only four letters, until we can learn to read the "words” made by sequences ofany three of them, it would seem that more progress in unraveling molecular taxonomy can bemade by studying proteins, built from an “alphabet” of twenty letters or amino-acids. Rather thanuse evolutionary presuppositions, this research proceeds from the working assumption that theworld of life is to be viewed as having arisen from certain stem organisms or “kinds” which in mostcases need to be elucidated.

IntroductionIn order to detect the pattern of living things

in nature, the earliest classifiers used the un-aided eye in their study of macroscopic anatomy.The advent of magnifying lenses about fourcenturies ago made it possible to study micro-scopic anatomy (which included details of de-velopmental anatomy or embryology). Most re-cent approaches, which had their beginnings atthe turn of the 20th century, seek to determinerelationships among living things using a mo-lecular approach–what might be called “mo-lecular anatomy.”

Usually molecules can not be observed (evenwith an electron microscope) and so it has beennecessary to utilize antibodies or various typesof instruments to recognize similarities and dif-ferences among these molecules.

Molecular substances most commonly usedhave been the large or macromolecules, namelyproteins, and then very recently DNA. Eachtype of organism has specific kinds of proteinsand DNA, but proteins and DNA are found todiffer when one group of living things is com-pared with another group.

Most of the available information on taxonom-ic biochemistry and serology, with exception ofthe latest DNA experiments, is summarized orat least bibliographically referred to in a sym-posium volume7.

In living things, DNA determines the “anat-omy” of proteins, which in turn play roles ofprimary importance as structural and functional(including enzymatic) proteins in a multitudeof chemical-physical conditions basic to the de-velopment, anatomy, physiology, and behavior ofthe organism. Therefore, when it is possible tocharacterize the proteins and DNA—for thesechemical substances basically are responsible

for life as we know it—we should have a clearpicture of the creative pattern in nature. An out-come of studies on macromolecules should bethe characterization of nature and detection ofhomologies in Owen’s sense of “essential sim-ilarity" 1.

In initiating a program pointing in this di-rection, I began working with the reptiles, forthey are considered by evolutionists to occupyan important position between amphibians, onthe one hand, and birds and mammals, on theother. The reptilian order, Chelonia, which con-tains all turtles has been a neglected group; and,therefore, since it has been possible to obtainmany types of turtles, I increasingly have util-ized them in an expanding program aimed atclarifying their molecular taxonomy.

Proteins in TurtlesBlood has been collected by cardiac puncture

without serious trauma, and serum obtainedfrom the blood has been injected into rabbitsor chickens in order to produce antiserumagainst the turtle serum proteins. Antiserumwas mixed with serial dilutions of various turtleserums; mixtures were incubated for 20 minutesat 37° C and then checked quantitatively forprecipitation (turbidity) using light scattering(Leone, p. 537).

In preparation for the test for which resultsare shown plotted in Figure 1, Chelydra s. ser-pentina (common snapping turtle), serum wasinjected into rabbit #32; after several weeksantiserum for Chelydra was obtained from therabbit and was mixed with doubling dilutionsof serum from snapping turtle (reference anti-genic material). The same antiserum also wasmixed with serum from the following animals(cross-reacting antigenic material) whose sci-entific names are shown below the commonsnapping turtle (from top to bottom) on the

19

Anti Chelydra s. serpentine R32 vs. A r e a %

Chelydra s. serpentine #18

Macroclemys temmincki #2

Emys blandingi #12

Platysternon megacephalum peguense #4

Terrapene c. carolina #44

Sternotherus odoratus #11

Kinosternon scorpioides #2

Chelodina Iongicollis #5

100

8 7

5 7

5 4

5 3

4 5

4 4

19

Antigen Dilution x 103

Figure 1. Plots of turbidity values over antigen reaction ranges after rabbit anti-snapping turtle serum wasmixed with doubling dilutions of serum from each of 8 turtles.

graph: alligator snapping, blandings, big-headed,eastern box, musk ( stink-pot), mud, and snake-necked turtles.

Relative areas under the graphs are expressedin the Area % column using the Chelydra areaas 100%. These values express the order of re-lationships existing among serum proteins inthese animals and when enough of these dataare accumulated they help in determination of

the “kind” of turtle(s) ancestral to others.Presently these results have a definite tax-

onomic value. They do not support a currentwidely-held position (q.v. e.g. Romer) that snap-ping turtles belong in a separate family whichis related to the Kinosternidae family contain-ing mud (K. scorpioides, 44% ) and musk (S.odorattm, 45%) turtles. These results clearlyshow the snapper to be closer to the emydid

20

family which contains the blandings (E. bland-ingi, 57% ) and box (T. c. carolina, 53%) turtles.

The great advantage of these precipitationevaluations is that with a series of readings ob-tained from the results of two reacting solutions(one being serially diluted), an investigator ismeasuring the sum of many antigen-antibody(an-ab) reactions. When the an-ab fits are good,there is considerable precipitation, and whenthe an-ab matching is not as good there is lessprecipitation.

Apparently the method quantitates degrees ofsimilarity of a whole spectrum of proteins; andthis method, therefore, obviates problems of re-lationship which can arise when single proteinsare compared either immunologically, or afterstudy by certain analytical methods. Essentiallythe technic simultaneously is discriminatingamong “anatomies” of one or two dozen or morespecific proteins. The systems which are actingactually can be determined by other methods in-cluding immunoelectrophoresis.

However, there are disadvantages. Withoutdetailed analyses, we are not sure which an-absystems are reacting in each case. What we havebeen calling quantitative comparisons are onlyrelative values; for with other dilutions of thesame antiserum, or with different antiserums,other percentages will be obtained. In spite ofthese disadvantages, the values obtained usuallyare repeatable within 5% and show the samerelative order when different antiserums areutilized.

In addition to many other studies like theabove, which utilizes precipitation in fluid sys-tems, my results using solid media such as agarhave agreed qualitatively with quantitativevalues as shown in Figure 1. Electrophoresisstudies also have given helpful qualitative re-sults9. In this type of study, the leading anodalcomponent of reptiles appears to be more im-portant as a taxonomic indicator than the pro-teins of larger size which group toward thecathode. In paper and cellulose acetate (bar-bital buffer, pH 8.6), kinosternids show fast-moving anodal components similar to humanalbumin whereas the leading component ofserum from chelydrids and emydids is fartherback from the anode. So here again, snappersare more like emydids.

In Figure 2 the five animals (top to bottom)are eastern box, common snapping, alligatorsnapping, eastern mud, and musk turtles. Theleading anodal components (albumin) of thesnapping turtles are seen to be positioned morelike that of the box turtle than like mud andmusk turtles. For a reference standard, thehuman pattern is shown; it is not for indicatingrelationships between man and turtles.

Figure 2. Results of electrophoresis of pooled turtleserums using cellulose acetate membranes. Serumwas applied where marked just left of center; anode(+) at right; cathode (—) at left.

DNA—Use in TaxonomyBecause differing protein structures are de-

termined by the base sequence in DNA, it hasbeen felt that if we could read the DNA of eachorganism we would have a most basic approachto the study of organisms. DNA, believed to beresponsible for the hereditary characteristics ofliving things is remarkably stable, and now itappears that cells even have the ability to repairdamage caused to DNA by mutagenic agents.3

Considerable research is directed toward un-derstanding DNA, but so far it has not beenpossible to read DNA “blueprints.” However,within the past five years a technic has beenutilized for obtaining relationships among liv-ing things based upon the degree of matchingof separated strands of DNA from different or-ganisms2 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 . The technique involves the fol-lowing steps:

21

1. High molecular weight DNA is heated toseparate the two strands and then it is cooledquickly to prevent rejoining.

2. The single strands are embedded in agarwhich is then sieved, and the granules aredivided into several equal portions.

3. Other samples of DNA from the “refer-ence” material (DNA used in steps 1 and 2) andfrom what will be “cross reacting” material aresheared to much lower molecular weight.

4. The sheared material is heated and cooledto get single strands.

5. Quantities of sheared, single-strandedDNA from several origins then are incubatedeach with a portion of the agar particles contain-ing DNA from the reference’ material. The smallfilaments diffuse into the agar and join withcomplementary regions of the trapped longerfilaments.

6. The agar is washed to remove small strandswhich are not paired with the longer trappedfilaments.

7. Then the agar particles in the severalgroups are evaluated to determine the quantityof the several types of specific small strandswhich have duplexed with the large trappedstrands from the reference material (Figure 3).

The method has been used in studies involvingannealing not only of DNA-DNA but also ofRNA-DNA. RNA has been found to be com-plementary to only one of the DNA strands,and DNA has been shown to possess regionscomplementary for transfer, messenger and ribo-somal RNA.

Studies have been done of annealing reactionsamong various types of organisms as well as withdifferent DNA species from the same cells. Itappears that different DNA molecules existwithin a single cell, as Euglena gracilis, wherenuclear, chloroplast, and mitochondrial DNAmay be distinguished by size and base composi-tion. Some of the procedures used in this re-search have involved certain modifications ofthe aforementioned technic, for instance utiliz-ing nitrocellulose membranes instead of agarl0.

Cross-reacting values are compared with thevalue obtained in the reference reaction, andresults are believed to indicate quantitative de-grees of resemblance among the types of lowmolecular weight strands annealing with thehigh molecular weight reference material. Mi-croorganisms have been utilized in most of thestudies so far, but certain investigators haveincluded even a variety of vertebrates as shownin Table 1. As would be expected from grossanatomical examination, those animals showingmore overall structural similarities such as mouse

Figure 3. Diagrammatic representation of the principleof the DNA-agar procedure. (Reprinted by per-mission of Science and of Hoyer6, p. 960.)

22

and rat showed higher percentages of duplexingof their respective DNA’s.

Table 1. Percentages of human and mouse shearedsingle-stranded DNA (fragments ) bound in agar tohigh molecular weight single-stranded DNA fromvarious organisms. (From Hoyers5).

DNA Embedded Percent of Fragments Boundin Agar Human Mouse

Human 18 5Mouse 6 22Rhesus monkey 14 8Rat 3 14Hamster 3 12Guinea pig 3 3Rabbit 3 3Bovine 5 4Salmon 1.5 1.5Escherichia coli 0.4 0.4None 0.4 0.4

In our laboratory, Mr. John Cruzan conducteda study utilizing DNA which he had extractedfrom erythrocytes of some of the turtles shownin Figure 1 and certain others as well. So far,only emydid, kinosternid and chelydrid turtleshave been used, but resulting hybridizationvalues with the DNA have not been repeatedlydifferent enough to permit differentiation amongthese groups. If more sensitive DNA methodscan be applied, it may be possible to discrim-inate among these turtles even as has been doneusing serum proteins.

DiscussionMost comparative studies proceed with the

assumption that similarity indicates descent fromcertain common ancestors. This approach isvery questionable in many cases as for instanceat the molecular level when we are dealingwith specific individual proteins (e.g. insulin andhemoglobin).

Therefore, many types of macromoleculesshould be included in the best type of compara-tive study seeking to determine relationshipsamong organisms. At present the detailed struc-ture of too few proteins is known for this to bepossible 6, and laborious procedures have beennecessary for determination of amino acid se-quences and other structural features. But prog-ress is being made.

When techniques are perfected for convenientlysequentially cleaving off the terminal aminoacids in polypeptide chains of various proteins,we will be able more readily to learn theirstructure. We will be able to compare thedifferent proteins among living things, and beable to construct dendrograms showing the prob-able diversifications that have occurred sincethe beginnings of the various groups..

It seems to me that proteins offer us more hopeof achieving a sound categorizing of nature than

does DNA, at least at the present time. In thecase of DNA we are dealing with polynucleotidechains built from an alphabet of only 4 letters.If we were able to read the DNA “words”, pre-sumably sound comparisons would be possible.

Since this can not be done yet, it may be betterfor molecular taxonomists to concentrate on theproteins, for in proteins we process polypeptidechains built from an alphabet of about 20 letters.With the larger protein alphabet, we actuallyhave a magnification of differences existing inDNA strands; and, even for this reason alone,protein studies may remain as our most fruit-ful molecular approach.

It is obvious that nature contains recognizablegroups of extinct and extant organisms, and forthis reason classification is possible. That cate-gories exist in nature is obvious, but that theyshare proximate or distant common ancestors isfar less obvious in most cases.

Rather than using evolutionary presupposi-tions in our research, we are proceeding withthe working assumption that the world of lifeis to be viewed as having arisen from certainstem organisms which in most cases need to beelucidated. We do not genetically cross gapsunless evidence is compelling. This impressesme as a judicious way to approach nature.

It is unnecessary and probably unwise to main-tain an evolutionary tension, which often isexpressed by a compulsion to bridge taxonomicgaps while describing nature. This may resultfrom conscious or unconscious antitheologicalfeelings or from a desire to conform to what isbelieved to be well-established procedures.

Whatever the case, all scientists must be pre-pared to re-evaluate the hypothesis (or theory)which they are using in integrating data con-cerning relationships of organisms. In determin-ing taxonomic groupings we need all types ofdata—physiological, behavioral, developmental,and anatomical (macroscopic, microscopic andmolecular). Molecular data are more prominentthan ever before.

References1Boyden, A., “Homology and Analogy. A Critical Re-

view of the Meanings and Implicatlons of TheseConcepts in Biology,” American Midland Naturalist,37:648-669, 1947.

2De Ley, J , and I. W. Park, “Disslmilarity BetweenHuman and Bacterial Deoxyribonucleic Acids,” Na-ture, 211 :1002, 1966.

3Hanawalt, P. C., and R. H Haynes, “The Repair ofDNA,” Scientific American, 216:36-43, 1967.

4Hoyer, B. H., E. T. Bolton, B. J. McCarthy, and R. B.Roberts, “The Evolution of Polynucleotides,” p. 581-590. In V. Bryson and H. J. Vogel, [ed.], Evolv ingGenes and Proteins Academic Press, New York, 1965.

(Continued on page 47)

23

DNA STUDIES IN RELATION TO CREATION CONCEPTSSUBTITLE:

The New Biology, Based on Molecular Structure, Shows No Proof of EvolutionJOHN J. GREBE , D.Sc.*

12430 W. St. Andrews Drive, Sun City, Arizona 85351

Finding no evidence for evolution in the DNA code, a new search is on for “the origin andevolution of the genetic mechanism.” DNA, after all, is basic to all life. Evolutionists had a rudeawakening when the fundamental nature of the DNA code. that defines and directs the inheri-tance of each living organism, proved to be equally large and complex for all genetic kinds. Statis-tics now show that the evolutionary theory has been postulated against ridiculous odds. “Goddoes not throw dice” was the conclusion of Einstein about all this, and now this is spelled out indetail. Immutability of the kinds of animals and plants is conceded by those specialists whoshould know. Man’s hopes cannot refute God'S word. Faith and revelation are also required inthe great new discoveries of Nature’s laws. The latest supposed “proof” of evolution is contra-dictory, internally.

IntroductionTo discuss the new questions of science and

the Bible requires some background considera-tions. Man’s general concepts of the formationof the earth and the living organisms in relationto their environment are subject to continualrevision. Scientists have learned more and de-veloped more new tools of research in the lastforty years than in all time previous.

Once only organisms composed of millions andmillions of atoms could be observed under amicroscope. Now we can take pictures showingthe pattern of position of single atoms. The be-havior and details of an atom and its parts canbe predicted with the precision associated withan automobile engine.

Most generally, discussions on the “theory”of evolution, or even the formation of the Earth,are pros and cons about scientific inferences thathave long since been superseded with facts.Similarly, Bible students often insist on readinginto the simple and clear language of the Bible,interpretations based on information more thanten years old. How convenient it was that Godmust have done things to match their ideas!

Or, in another respect, it is particularly diffi-cult to estimate ages, now, that it is recognizedhow much radioactive decay is modified by cos-mic rays. Cosmic rays are subject to action bythe Earth’s magnetic field, and the amount ofwater in orbit around the Earth. During thelast reversal of the magnetic field, water andwater producing ions could not help but be

swept down out of orbit. Such changes upsetall radioactive dating; making isotope datingappear older in most cases.

With the above areas of misunderstandingout of the way, I want to assert that no one canpoint to a single fact of science, history orarcheology that conflicts with a literal readingof the Bible. We have asked avid evolutioniststo come forth with factual evidence. We haveseen only trivial misrepresentations of both sci-ence and the Bible. These have been well ex-posed in papers by Lammerts and others invarious issues of the Creation Research Societypublications.

Scientific Knowledge IncompleteLest someone think that the latest science

is inferred to be complete in its knowledge ofthe Bible and God’s Creation, I must point outthat Planck’s length derived from Planck’s con-stant, (a very basic unit of real significance toscience), is so small, that the ratio of what weknow of “inner space,” to what we know is tobe known, is much less than the proverbial dropin the bucket. It is less than one part in 1060.

Even now scientists like G. G. Simpson ofHarvard, conclude in Science, April 22, 1966,page 472-8:

However, in my opinion nothing that hasso far been learned about DNA has helped sig-nificantly to understand the nature of man orof any other whole organism. It certainly isnecessary for such understanding to examinewhat is inherited, how it is expressed in the

*Until the spring of 1965, Dr. John J. Grebe was director of nuclear research for Dow chemi-cal Company of Midland, Michigan. He then retired with many honors, and now lectures andwrites from his home in Sun City, Arizona. During the summer he lives in his lovely vacationhome near Arcadia, Michigan. Dr. Grebe continues as one of the directors of the CreationResearch Society, and we are very pleased to publish this fine testimony of his conviction thatthe latest DNA studies can only be explained by Creative design.

24

developing individual, how it evolves in pop-ulations, and so on. Up to now the triumphsof DNA research have had virtually no effecton our understanding of those subjects. Indue course molecular biology will undoubted-ly become more firmly connected with thebiology of whole organisms and with evolu-tion, and then it will become of greater con-cern for those more interested in the natureof man than in the nature of molecules.

In fact at the level of molecular structureand interaction, information storage and trans-fer, energy transactions, and other definingcharacteristics of life, man is hardly signifi-cantly different from a bacterium —anotherillustration of the fact that that level of study isnot particularly useful in considering the na-ture of men. (Emphasis added)

and R. V. Eck concludes in Science, April 15,1966, pages 363-6:

Such ancient systems are extremely con-servative because so many diverse later re-actions have become intricately dependenton them that they are no longer “free” toevolve. A mutational change which might bebeneficial in one way, in almost every casewould be at a strong disadvantage in manyother ways. When such a mutation occurred,the process of natural selection would there-fore reject it. This conservative principle en-ables us to comprehend why ferredoxin from aliving organism could still retain detectable de-tails of its ancient origin.

Thus, in organisms still living there mayexist biochemical relics of the era encompass-ing the origin and evolution of the geneticmechanism. Determination of the sequencesof proteins such as ferredoxin and of nucleicacids such as transfer RNA, whose prototypesmust have functioned at this early time shouldmake possible a detailed reconstruction of thebiochemical evolutionary events of this era.(Emphasis added)

Top Scientists Concede Immutability of DNAMany scientists recognize that the study of

molecular biology lends no support to the evolu-tionist stand. Even now, they know that theDNA molecules of the various kinds of livingbeings are structurally all alike. Also, scientistsknow that DNA molecules are quite immutableand resist the conversion of one kind to another,in spite of observed mutations from radiation andvariations according to Mendel’s laws.

Some scientists look for new discoveries ofthe science of the future to try to explain un-planned and unguided deterministic “evolution”of the first DNA molecule with the genetic mech-anism of any one living organism. There is no“Higher” or “Lower” any more.

The amoeba, the algae, or man each has aDNA code of the same atomic complexity, withabout a million atoms each in the same kindof arrangement. Just think of the informationwritten into that DNA slate of only about a mil-lion atoms. Man knows how to distinguish about2,000 atoms, the various isotopes of our 100natural and synthetic elements.

Only about ten of these are found in the DNA;and yet, each DNA code for man is nominallythe same though we know that this structure, fartoo small to see under the optical microscope—has in it the information that differentiates you,your voice, your manner, your color combina-tions, your basic skills. your inherited suscepti-bility to various diseases, and of course also,your general appearances, from billions of otherhuman beings.

It is comforting to know that there are atleast a bucket full of spaces for factual obser-vations for every drop that we now have. Sim-ilarly, oceans of facts reach out into space fromwhich our spacemen are recovering an ever in-creasing number of pearls of wisdom. That im-mensity of space also contains facts to be dis-cerned by new methods and apparatus. It isa grand new horizon for exploration, among factsand properties to which we are blind at thepresent. Certainly the average atom of the DNAmust have associated with it no less than onemillionth of the information to be coded. Howis that possible?

While identical twins are as much alike as onecan measure by all the tests known, ordinarytwins and other persons differ from one anotherby at least 100 detectable variations. With atleast 10 billion people past and present to differfrom, one can safely say that there are a millionmillion differences to be found among themillion atoms making up the DNA of humanbeings, which are nominally alike as far as mo-lecular structure and composition are concerned.

So each one of the million atoms of the DNAmust somehow, on the average help to conveyone million traits and characteristics. Whilewe know a lot about each element and isotope,a million properties are beyond our science bysay 10,000 fold.

New Explanations Are LikelyAll this would be a conundrum if we did not

know that there is much more than this that isto be known, based on Planck’s length, whichis about 1020 (a hundred billion billion) timesas small as the nucleus of the atom. Planck’slength can be derived mechanically by acceptingMaxwell’s equations and Einstein’s relativity andprinciple of equivalence (now a proven law), thatmatter is energy and visa versa.

25

If an electron and a positron are allowed tofall toward one another until they obtain therelativistic mass and density of a nucleus ( whichis also the threshold energy for electrons to in-teract with a nucleus for pair formation), thenthe separate charges moving at the velocity oflight, produce a magnetic field equal to theirnew mass. Much heavier nuclei can also beexplained this way. The gravitational constantcan be derived from the attractions of suchdipoles. Newton’s laws of motion are also ex-plained since these charges rotate about oneanother at 0.91 times the velocity of light, Achange in the velocity of displacement causesa relativistic increase in mass, exactly matchingthe requirements of Newtons laws. The separa-tion of the paths of the charges become thedistance of Planck’s length and can obtaininformation in the pattern of their weave.

Therefore, we see that there are many stepsavailable for defining details we could not pos-sibly enumerate. Theoretically, the individualatom can carry in its nucleus—if composed ofthe required number of such couples of plusand minus charges (309 for each neutron, 308.5for each proton)—more information than is inall the books of the biggest library.

The steps of differentiation are each small inenergy content so that they are able to receiveand transfer the information with the availableelectromagnetic power involved in thought. Sowe do not deal with the “extremely unlikely” inthese concepts.Statistics Show Odds Against Chance Assemblies

The DNA assembly uses only 20 out of 64possible sub-assemblies. The basic units arecalled nucleotides. They are arranged in a spiralrope, ladder-like structure, made of a purine,pyramidine, sugar and phosphate unit, eachgroup of four forming one of many rung sections.

The 15,000 or more atoms of the individualsub-assemblies, if left to chance as required bythe evolutionary theory, would go together inany of 1087 different ways. (This is ten billionwith 77 more ciphers behind it). It is like throw-ing 15,000 dice at a time to determine whatspecific molecule to make; and, then, to testeach one for the survival of the fittest until theone out of 1087 different possibilities is provenby the survival of the fittest to be the right one.

Just think, only 20 of all these possible aminoacids are actually used in nature to form, de-scribe and prescribe all the kinds of life known.And only a small amount of each individual cellof each living organism is made up of the DNAmolecule. Theoretically, each cell could be mul-tiplied and grown into the living whole just likegrowing a plant from a slip.

Now, let us try to locate, and hold for assem-bly, the sub-assemblies of 20 kinds out of the1087 kinds that should form at random, if anydid form. Lo and behold! The dice are loaded.

Not all the types of sub-assemblies expect-ed at random are available in the same num-bers. One of them is more than 1061 (100 billionplus 50 zeros behind it) times as predominant asthe average because of its greater thermody-namic stability—as determined by well estab-lished laws of equilibrium concentrations.

This is governed by the same kind of scientificfacts as those used in the oil industry to get thebest kind of much smaller petroleum moleculesout of a refinery process. Even this predomi-nant one is available only one in more than athousand, billion, billion. But while you maywant two of that predominant one, for findingeach of the other units you have to wadethrough more than 1061 (more than 10 billionmultiplied by itself six times).

Fortunately, one can find five more kinds ofmolecules that are used in the DNA for every100,000 or so of the first. But, then, the pickinggets that much leaner for the other 14 kinds outof the 1087 possible ones, diluted by the pre-dominant ones, which are there and reform inthe equilibria that must be maintained, if anyof them are in position to form. Obviously, thecreation of order out of random positions androtations in each of the six degrees of freedomcalls for the reversal of the laws of thermody-namics on a fantastic scale in addition to therequired activation energies.

No wonder Einstein said about theistic evolu-tion “God does not throw dice,” long before thisextreme complexity was known. Nobel LaureateDr. Harold C. Urey explained that there is notenough matter in the universe to make the manykinds of sub-assemblies that would form atrandom, if any do.

Let us now assume we have overcome thelaws of chance generation which would call forthe production of more than 1087 kinds of aminoacids to pick and test from for the survival ofthe fittest and to be put together in one specificway out of 410000 alternate ways (yes, that isfour multiplied by itself ten thousand times), foreach and any one species. We find that thisis for asexual reproduction.

Sexual reproduction requires that the sameunique macro-molecular composition would ap-pear (a) at the same place, (b) at the verysame instant, (c) twice, (d) with exactly thecorrect temperature, (e) velocity, and (f) di-rection to meet and stay together, (g) withoutinterference from others for long enough timeto entwine together to make the first DNA pairin (h) a specific nutrient medium that is then

26

protected somehow by, (i) a membrane, whichpermits (j) the RNA-smaller than DNA and (k)the hundreds of enzymes to (1) function togethersimultaneously (m) in a complex pattern of ac-tion, (n) somehow pre-trained or by “inherited”self-control.Creation Required Specific Plans and Control of

Individual AtomsNow, if the exact kind and number of amino

acid molecules were counted out and confinedand somehow, against the laws of nature, alsoprotected against “the survival of the fittest” ina thermodynamic equilibrium, one would stillhave only one chance out of 1031 (10 billionwith 21 ciphers added) to obtain the one com-bination for any one species as a dead aggl-omerate.

To put life into this assemblage would be likeexpecting a fantastically large and complexorgan to assemble itself from its parts; and, then,somehow start playing the most perfectly har-monious and varied music, new and original,continuously–all by itself. “Only metabolism”comparable to the chimney draft due to the sunwould be available to furnish the energy. Thatorgan represents merely a tiny part of the DNAcode in a single cell of any one living organism.

Instruments are even now available that listento this music for us in the form of electron spinresonance, Mossbauer effect, nuclear magneticmoment and resonance measurements. They de-tect the difference between the living and deadmatter very easily.

The great fact so clearly established now isthat this is the minimum organization for a livingorganism. It is as basic as the proof of Pasteurthat only life begets life in answer to thenotions about spontaneous generation of about acentury ago.

Even now, this unsupported theory of spon-taneous generation is still being promoted sothat great scientists like Vannevar Bush have todefine the problem of proving it all over againand point out the trivial support for such teach-ings. He states, “Science, when understood prop-erly, makes man humble in his ignorance andsmallness.” (Fortune Magazine, May, 1965)

All this says that it would be as near infinitelytimes as improbable to convert one kind intoanother by spontaneous generation, as it is forthe first kind to form from the elements in thefirst place. Who would have predicted thisfrom the coarse measurements of the past?

It is the new tools that show that each DNAcode from that of the lowest to the highest or-ganism differs, but also has the same atomic com-plexity. Even the data on the amino acid se-quence for small proteins like the cytochrome C

gene differs for each of the mammals. It is likehaving to use a different kind of oil in each car.

Read the reference particularly by George G.Simpson in Science, February 21, 1964, Vol. 143,p. 769-775, in view of the above, Simpson isthe leader in promoting evolutionary conceptsin the United States. He acknowledges in thisreference that evolution requires the suspensionor breaking of very basic well established ther-modynamic laws, and as well: “It requires anattitude of hope if not of faith to assume thatthe acquisition of organic adaptability was de-terministic or inevitable–”

He also recognizes, that, granted macromole-cules, (by spontaneous generation ) then: “Thefurther organization of those molecules intocellular life would seem to have a far different,very much lower order of probability.”

He points out additional hurdles, and limita-tions of the theory, even mentions Creation asan alternative to having hope and faith in longtime intervals for chance and accidents to occurthat are “so incredibly intricate “and” extremelyunlikely.”

Dr. Simpson also discusses the conditions thatcause the fixity of species or kinds, but doesnot express it as positively as Thomas H. Jukes,who concludes a very learned review by saying:“One cannot imagine amino acids detachingthemselves from a protein, combining withsRNA, and lining up in order to synthesize amessenger strand which would return to thenucleus to make a new gene.” ( From AmericanScientist, 53, p. 487-8 1965) Similarly Hinegard-ner and Engelberg regard the production ofmerely “a new enzyme by the mutation of thegenetic code –incredible.” (Science, 22 M a y1964. p. 1031)

You can see from this that it would be muchless of a miracle for God to create what He wantsthan to do that next to impossible job of selectionand assembly called for by evolutionists, Thissays nothing about the RNA and enzymes thatmust be ready to do their job at the same timein cooperation with presupposed sustenancefor metabolism.

Even before all these newly reported hurdlesto spontaneous generation were understood,George G. Simpson, the leading evolutionist inthe United States for many years had arrived atthe following conclusion: In spite of the infor-mation that there are likely to be as least 100,-000,000 other planets in the universe as suit-able for our type of life as the Earth, it is ex-tremely unlikely that life could have “evolved”by natural causes in any proposed time periodto produce a being of some form that couldplan and communicate. He would be the lastto claim evolution as inevitable. You can then

27

see why G. G. Simpson also allows for thepossibility that it took a Superior Power.

Popular Notions Behind Current ScienceWhile many top scientists are very active in

pointing out that no facts of science contradictthe Bible speaking for itself, it is important tostate that the references cited were taken fromreports that are written in the vein of evolu-tionary theory. However, top scientists gen-erally try their best not to overstate theiropinions. They show more respect for the mar-vels of nature than most theologians do, simplybecause good scientists know how to ask manymore and bigger questions than they can an-swer, while the novice does not know how littlehe knows.

Any indication of direction, pre-selection, orplan of action or design is strictly taboo sinceonly the test of the survival of the fittest maydetermine final use. A case in point is the authorof The Molecular Basis of Evolution, Dr. Chris-tian B. Anfinsen. In the preface he just as muchas disclaims evolution by saying, “We like to be-lieve that Nature has been very wise and efficientin the design of the chemical compounds, how-ever, large and complicated, which make up thestructure and machinery of living things.” Thenhe goes on to illustrate it.

Far from calling evolution a fact, he says, “itis unlikely that we shall ever have more thanopinions regarding the origin of life.” This isthe best kind of genuine testimony free of preju-dice in favor of the Bible. While the DNA ofsome mammals differs from others by only twoof these 20 sub-assemblies, man differs fromothers by seventeen. It would shock the oldfashioned thinking of evolutionists on observa-tions about a million times more coarse than now,to know their nearest DNA relations.

On the other hand the story of creation musthave been written for the space age, as well asfor the Hebrews, because it took until now toknock out of our heads the last of each suc-cessive generation of man’s speculations aboutthe formation of the Earth, and all that wasbrought forth on it.

Now, we marvel at the wonder of how theold words like “the waters above the firmament”do convey what we now know from observationson Earth and in space around us. We even“agree” that life started on the surface, not inthe water.

We just did not know enough facts to under-stand those specific words of Genesis 1, beforethis, so in our blindness some people condemnedthem to mythology. Nobel Laureate GlennSeaborg, chairman of our Atomic Energy Com-

mission reads it for what it says, in awe of thesignificance. Many scientists share this awe.Some would-be-scientists think they know better.

The men to be pitied the most, however, arethose biologists who have seen their mentalimage of evolution shattered so completely bythe new science of molecular biology, now earn-ing so many Nobel prizes. They even try to rid-icule it in top journals as one did in Science, bycalling DNA–the holy trinity.

Basic Scientific Insights Result of RevelationEven some of the tough theological points,

long since ditched by modern rationalists andhumanists are now related to and explained byphenonema encountered in the physical sciences.A recent Nobel prize winner, for the discoveryof the maser, Provost and Professor of Physicsat M. I. T., Dr. Charles H. Townes, in Think forApril, 1966 discusses “The Convergence of Sci-ence and Religion,” emphasing the role of faithand revelation. He stated:

Einstein spent the last half of his life lookingfor a unity between gravitational and electro-magnetic fields. Many physicists feel that hewas on the wrong track, and no one yet knowswhether he made any substantial progress.But he had faith in a great vision of unity andorder, and he worked intensively at it forthirty years or more. Einstein had to have thekind of dogged conviction that could haveallowed him to say with Job, “Though heslay me, yet will I trust in him.”

For lesser scientists, on lesser projects, thereare frequent occasions when things just don’tmake sense and making order and understand-ing out of one’s work seems almost hopeless.But still the scientist has faith that there isorder to be found, and that either he or hiscolleagues will someday find it. . . .

Another common idea about the differencebetween science and religion is based on theirmethods of discovery. Religion’s discoveriesoften come by great revelations. Scientificknowledge, in the popular mind, comes bylogical deductions, or by the accumulation ofdata which is analyzed by established methodsin order to draw generalizations called laws.But such a description of scientific discoveryis a travesty on the real thing. Most of theimportant scientific discoveries come aboutvery differently and are much more closelyakin to revelation. The term itself is generallynot used for scientific discovery, since we arein the habit of reserving revelation for thereligious realm. In scientific circles one speaksof intuition, accidental discovery, or says sim-ply that “he had a wonderful idea.” ( Emphasisadded)

28

If we compare how great scientific ideasarrive, they look remarkably like religious rev-elation viewed in a non-mystical way.

Think of Moses in the desert, long troubledand wondering about the problem of savingthe children of Israel, when suddenly he hada revelation by the burning bush.

Consider some of the revelations of the NewTestament. . . . . . . . . . .

Similarly, the scientists, after hard work andmuch emotional and intellectual commitmentto a troubling problem, sometimes suddenlysees the answer. Such ideas much more oftencome during off-moments than while con-fronting data.

A striking and well-known example is thediscovery of the benzene ring by Kekule, whowhile musing at his fireside was led to theidea by a vision of snakes taking their tails intheir mouths. We cannot yet describe thehuman process which leads to the creation ofan important and substantially new scientificinsight. But it is clear that the great scientificdiscoveries, the real leaps, do not usually comefrom the so-called “scientific method," butrather more as did Kekule's-with perhaps lesspicturesque imagery, but by revelations whichare just as real. (Emphasis added)This has been recorded for all branches of arts

and music; and, for physical sciences, particu-larly, in the case of Newton’s theory of gravi-tation, Maxwell’s theory of electro magnetism,Einstein’s theory of relativity, Planck’s theory ofthe quantum of action, and Heisenberg’s un-certainty principle. All these have been es-tablished.

Townes continued:Can religious beliefs also be viewed as

working hypotheses, tested and validated byexperience? To some this may seem a secularand even an abhorrent view. In any case, itdiscards absolutism in religion. But I see noreason why acceptance of religion on thisbasis should be objectionable. The validityof religious ideas must be and has been testedand judged through the ages by societies andby individual experience. Is there any greatneed for them to be more absolute than thelaw of gravity? The latter is a working hy-pothesis whose basis and permanency we donot know. But on our belief in it, as well ason many other complex scientific hypotheses,we risk our lives daily. . . .

We must also expect paradoxes and not besurprised or unduly troubled by them. Weknow of paradoxes in physics, such as thatconcerning the nature of light, which havebeen resolved by deeper understanding. We

know of some which are still unresolved. Inthe realm of religion, we are troubled by thesuffering around us and its apparent inconsis-tency with a God of love. Such paradoxesconfronting science do not usually destroyour faith in science. They simply remind usof a limited understanding, and at times pro-vide a key to learning more. (Emphasis add-ed )

Perhaps there will be in the realm of religioncases of the uncertainty principle, which wenow know is such a characteristic phenomenonof physics. If it is fundamentally impossibleto determine accurately both the position andvelocity of a particle, it should not surpriseus if similar limitations occur in other aspectsof our experience. This opposition in the pre-cise determination of two quantities is also re-ferred to as complementarity; position andvelocity represent complementary aspects ofa particle, only one of which can be measuredprecisely at any one time.

Nils Bohr has already suggested that per-ception of man, or any living organism as awhole, and of his physical constitution repre-sents this kind of complementarity. That is,the precise and close examination of the atomicmakeup of man may of necessity blur ourview of him as a living and spiritual being. Inany case, there seems to be no justification forthe dogmatic position taken by some that theremarkable phenomenon of individual humanpersonality can be expressed completely interms of the presently known laws of behaviorof atoms and molecules. Justice and love mayalso represent such complementarity. A com-pletely loving approach and the simultaneousmeting out of exact justice hardly seem con-sistent. (Emphasis added)But what loving parent has not appeared in-

consistent to his child? God’s well defined pur-pose, and generally also that of the parent, isto mete out justice, “for your own good and toprepare you for much bigger and more importantresponsibilities of the future.”

The late Dr. W. F. G. Swarm, a great physicistand former director of the Bartol Research Foun-dation of the Franklin Institute, has left an ex-pression of his views in the article, “Blueprintof the Universe” in Science of Mind, April, 1967,issue. After presenting proofs of purpose-design–plan–intelligence as evidenced in Creation, hepresents a challenge to any materialistic scientist.

Any materialistic scientist, who wants to claimevolution rather than admit the truth of theproofs of design, is challenged to present one ormore items in any part of the Creation whichcould be improved upon by the materialist, or

29

by “chance.” Near the close of his article, Dr.Swarm wrote:

. . . as an end thought, I picture our verymaterialistic physicist who has designed hisuniverse, and then, as a hell, is condemned tolive in it. (p. 16)The materialistic physicist would surely for-

get some side effects, by which our great sci-entific technology has been plagued so verymuch. After writing that the existence of in-telligence may be regarded as an observationalfact, Swarm explained,

And when I speak of intelligent design I meanthe kind of design which is sufficiently like thatwhich one of our engineers might have aspiredto achieve; but so far beyond the powers ofany living engineer to achieve, that it must,of necessity, leave mankind extremely humblein the estimation of his own powers. (p. 13)Recently, a most candid presentation of the

best case noted so far for the evolutionary theorybecame available: Chromosomes, Giant Mole-cules, and Evolution by Bruce Wallace (W. W.Norton and Co., Inc., New York, 1966). I couldpoint to many references of evidence for order,system, plan, direction, and efficiency in theauthor’s use of genetic material; presented in anable way. For example, he states, “Is there anysimpler solution to the problem of reproduction?I do not think that there is.” (p. 19) What awonderful testimony for an all wise Creator!

Since when has anyone, any thing, any hap-penstance, any shaking of dice or alphabet blockscome up with any admittedly more efficient so-lution when “there are literally billions of waysin which nucleic acid code words could havebeen assigned to the twenty amino acids.” (p.156) Yes, there was One Source that overcameHis own laws of nature like making water runuphill, to create energy and matter, in fantasticsimplicity and in beauty of complexity. Then Hecreated the unique conditions and life on Earth,allowing us very endowed creatures, in these lastgreat years, to unravel some of the mysteriesof that perfect order, unity and efficiency ofHis creation.

Using the criteria presented by Dr. Wallacehimself, as he wrote on page 5, “Search diligentlyfor the adequate, reject the untestable—thoseare the recognized procedures of the laboratory,the classroom, the clinic, and the courtroom.”The subject can best be closed with his words:

At the very outset the following point wasconceded: any person who is firmly and un-alterably convinced that each of today’s speciesof plants and animals arose by an act of specialcreation will find no evidence in this book thatwill compel him to change his mind. There

simply is no such evidence, nor can there everbe. A Divine Being of infinite wisdom, wemust all admit, could have created living formsin a manner that would have dribbled off asby-products all of these things we havegleaned as evidence for evolution. We canonly say that He went about His task in away that mimicked evolution in every detail; itis unfortunate that some event did not occurwhich would have clearly ruled out evolution-ary theory. (p. 76) (Emphasis added)Fortunately, events have occurred which

clearly do rule out this theory by the criteria pre-sented. It is “untestable” because "There simplyis no such evidence, nor can there ever be.”

Second, the laws of chance, (which are wellused by Dr. Wallace for his purpose of showingthat it must be easier to modify an existing DNAcode in a living cell than to start over fromscratch ), also show that they are not “adequate”to provide proof that any kind of DNA and itsmetabolism with RNA and enzymes in a nu-trient medium protected by a membrane couldpossibly be formed by chance in the first place.

Just think how much less likely it is, thatWallace’s most “simple solution to the problemof reproduction,“ “literally out of billions ofways,” starting with the four bases available ina cell, would be produced by chance actions.

Finally, what is the probability of chanceactions to go counter to well established lawsof thermodynamics? Being an honest scientist,Dr. Wallace does not claim this, nor have anyother authorities. Not even the formation of onlyone new enzyme in a living cell is consideredcredible. (Hinegardner and Engelberg, Science,22 May 1964, p. 1031.)

Dr. Wallace also is true scientist enough toreport (p. 20) the reason for such failures: “Eachprotein consists of tens, hundreds, or even thou-sands of amino-acid molecules attached to oneanother in a specified order; slight alterations inthe sequence in which amino acids are strungtogether can destroy the biological function ofa protein molecule.”

It is also well known that the mere insertionof the correct base unit in a reversed positionleads to death. And yet there are those who havefaith in chance, enough to believe the admit-tedly unprovable. Somehow accidental changesshould suffice to provide the basis for a newspecies in one DNA strand of the many parallelstrands and change the whole by a miracle.

Are we to believe that the same very complexaccident can occur in the same position on allthe DNA strands in both the male and the fe-male chromosomes which then “happen” tomate?

3 0

The alternative way for producing a newspecies could be by virgin birth. This is provento occur under the most rigid laboratory condi-tions, among carefully controlled strains of mam-mals used for research.

The chances would be enormously increased,but still, would be too hard to swallow. And yetwith direction, plan and control, its occurrenceis more likely, and may well be establishedthrough intensive research someday. Just to beable to produce a new, gentically perfect pairfrom the same flesh, might open our eyes to thegreat depth of shared throughts and feelings and

the intimacy with the Creator of such a couple.On the other hand, there are thousands of

people, including the present writer, who exper-ience and live by the guidance of the Creator,and have been privileged to see and livethrough critical turning points in their lives farahead of the time of decision. Though blessedwith enough adversity to keep them struggling,they carry on with that guidance that has notfailed them. Since science has verified statementafter statement in the Bible, then for us to ac-cept as our personal Guide, our Creator, is asmall act of faith indeed.

THE EVOLUTION OF COMPLEX ORGANIC COMPOUNDSFROM SIMPLER CHEMICAL COMPOUNDS:

IS IT THERMODYNAMICALLY AND KINETICALLY POSSIBLE?EMMETT L. WILLIAMS , JR., Ph.D.

Dept. of Physics and Chemistry, Bob Jones University, Greenville, South Carolina 29614

Present sources of energy for conversion of inorganic molecules to various organic moleculesare given. Electrical discharges, used by Miller and Urey, are shown to be relatively minor ones,compared to the sun’s energy which is so effective in destroying organic compounds.

Even though set up as a closed system, so as to force the reaction to the product side by se-lectively removing and accumulating the products, only slight amounts of various organic com-pounds, such as glycine, resulted. Quoting Hull as estimating the half-life of glycine as only about30 days, 97% of it would be decomposed before reaching the earth.

Considering the possible 3% which falls into the ocean, Hull concludes that ultraviolet radiationwould decompose it in the upper 100 meters in a half-life of about 20 years. The physicalchemist guided by proved principles of chemical thermo-dynamics and kinetics cannot offer anyencouragement to the biochemist who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even life-less coacervates.

Miller’s experiment is an excellent one, scientifically-speaking, and when properly interpretedleads to the conclusion that life could certainly never originate spontaneously.

IntroductionOne of the necessary steps in the supposed

process of evolution is the formation of complexorganic compounds from the reaction of simplerchemical compounds such as NH3, CH4, andH20. The hypothesis of spontaneous generationof life would fall apart if such chemical reactionswere impossible for there would be no organiccompounds available for life.

Even if the reactions would occur, the produc-tion of extremely large amounts of organic com-pounds is also necessary, Thus, if any reactionis possible, it must produce high yields of organiccompounds or spontaneous generation wouldbe very unlikely.

In the July 31, 1959 issue of Science, S. L .Miller and H. C. Urey published an article en-titled, “Organic Compound Synthesis on thePrimitive Earth” outlining the evolutionary posi-

tion on this subject. In answer to this paper,D. E. Hull wrote an article entitled, “Thermo-dynamics and Kinetics of Spontaneous Genera-tion,” that appeared in the May 28, 1960 issueof Nature. The position put forth in Hull’s paperis that the production of complex organic com-pounds from simple chemical species is impossi-ble under the conditions given by Miller andUrey.

This paper is simply a review of both articles,and frequent reference is made to the abovepapers.

Use of Electrical DischargesOparin l, taking the evolutionary viewpoint,

thought that the spontaneous generation of thefirst living organism could have taken place, iflarge quantities of organic compounds had beenpresent in the oceans of the primitive earth,

31

Miller and Urey2 state that the greatest prog-ress in the formation of organic compounds un-der supposed primitive conditions has been madeby utilizing electrical discharges as a source ofenergy. This energy would come from lightningand corona discharges from pointed objects. Itis interesting to consider the table given byMiller and Urey2 showing the present-daysources of available energy for a postulated evo-lutionary process.

Table 1. Present Sources of Energy Available forEvolutionary Processes Averaged Over the Earth2

Source Energy(cal-cm -2-yr -1)

Total radiation from sun 260,000Ultraviolet light–portion of sun radiation

(wavelengths less than 2500A) 658.5Electrical Discharges 4.0Cosmic Rays 0001.5Radioactivity (to 10 km. depth) 0.8Volcanoes 0.13

It should be noted that the most readilyavailable and abundant sources of energy arenot considered as promising as this minor source(electrical discharges), simply because experi-ments utilizing ultraviolet light have successfullyproduced only very small yields of organiccompounds. 3-5 The largest available laboratory,our planet, utilizes radiation from the sun. How-ever, on the postulated primitive earth, no photo-synthetic organism had yet evolved.2 Also mostof the sun’s energy is in the range of wavelengthsthat would be more effective in destroying or-ganic compounds that in aiding their develop-ment.

Experiments Conducted Under ReducingConditions

Since oxidizing conditions are now presenton the earth, many attempts were made by sci-entists to synthesize organic compounds underoxidizing conditions.6 Most of the experimentswere unsuccessful, and if any organic com-pounds were produced, the yield was very small.2

Since these experiments offered no promise,the primitive earth must have had a reducingatmosphere to allow for the formation of organiccompounds. This was suggested by Oparin.l

Miller’s experiments7 were run under reducingconditions.

Miller’s experimental apparatus2 was a closedsystem of glass, except for tungsten electrodesused to discharge the electrical arc. Water wasboiled in a 500 ml flask, and the water vaporand gases were mixed in a five liter flask wherethe electrodes were located. The products of thedischarge were condensed and then broughtthrough a U-tube back into the 500 ml flask.

It should be noted that the well-known prin-ciple of increasing the yield of a reaction byselectively removing the product from the re-acting mixture has been utilized in this experi-ment. 8 In other words, the reaction has beenforced to the product side of the supposed chem-ical equation. An analysis of the products isgiven in Table 2.

Table 2. Analysis of Yields from Sparking A Mixtureof CH 4, NH3, H2O, and H2, (710 mg of Carbon wasadded as CH4)

2,9

CompoundGlycineGlycolic AcidSarcosineAlanineLactic AcidN-Methylalanineα -Amino-n-butyric Acidα -Aminoisobutyric Acidα -Hydroxybutyric Acidβ -AlanineSuccinic AcidAspartic AcidGlutamic AcidIminodiacetic AcidIminoacetic-propionic AcidFormic AcidAcetic AcidPropronic AcidUreaN-Methyl Urea

Yield (moles).00063.00056.00005.00034.00031.00001.00005.000001.00005.00015.00004

.000006

.000055

.000015

.00233

.00015

.00013

.00002.000015

.000004

Thermodynamics of Spontaneous GenerationHull8 in his paper quantitatively considered

the formation of the very simple amino acid,glycine. This basic constituent of proteins isbelieved to be coded by the DNA triplet ofnucleotides: adenine, cytosine, cytosine. Otheramino acids are more complicated in that oneof the hydrogen atoms attached to the centralcarbon atom in glycine is replaced by someother combination of atoms, such as CH3 inalanine. Thus, other amino acids are morecomplex.

It should be obvious that if it is difficult toform simpler compounds, it would be almostimpossible to form more complex compounds.Hull used the concentrations of raw materialsas given by Miller and Urey2 in his calculations.He worked within the supposed favorable re-ducing atmosphere.

Miller and Urey2 were very concerned inshowing that raw materials would be availablefor the formation of organic compounds, and as-sumed that their experiment would show thatthese raw materials would react to form the or-ganic products. They applied thermodynamicsto find the equilibrium concentrations of the raw

32

materials, but did not apply thermodynamics tothe synthesis of the organic compounds.2 Hulldid the latter,

Consider the reaction:2 C H4 + NH3 + 2H20 ~ NH2C H2COOH + 5H2

which leads to the formation of glycine with thereactants used by Miller.9 The equilibrium con-stant (K) for this reaction is 2x10-40. Based onprinciples of physical chemistry, the larger Kis, the more products will form (reaction tendsto the right); the smaller K is, the fewer productswill form (reaction tends to the left). For thereaction,

where “a” is the activity of the substances in-volved in the reaction. Rules10 for expressingthese activities for dilute solutions are:

aA = NA (mole fraction) if A is the solvent(for pure solvents, solid or liquid, aA = 1);

a A = CA (concentration) if A is a solute(concs. to be expressed in moles per 1000 gramsof solvent; or, what is nearly the same thing fordilute aqueous solutions, in moles per liter ofsolution;

aA = PA (partial pressure) if A is a gas (pres-sures, or partial pressures, to be expressed inatmospheres).

Miller and Urey2 calculated for a primitiveatmosphere that

Using these values and the value for K, theaqueous concentration of glycine was found tobe 10-27 moles per liter.8 Similar calculations formore complex- amino-acids yield smaller con-centrations.8 Therefore, at equilibrium condi-tions, there is little chance of having availableenough organic compounds suitable for any evo-lutionary process. Hull8 states, “It is possiblethat, in an energy-rich medium, steady-rate con-centrations can be maintained far from equilib-rium. In such cases the expected concentrationsdepend on the available mechanisms for syn-thesis and decomposition.” Assume that con-centrations much greater than 10-27 moles perliter of glycine could be formed. Once formed,would anything in the supposed primitive at-mosphere cause decomposition of the organicproducts? To answer such questions the kinet-ics of spontaneous generation processes must beconsidered.

Kinetics of Spontaneous GenerationFrom Table 1, it is seen that ultraviolet light

is an important source of energy for any naturalprocess occurring on earth or in the earth’s at-mosphere. It must also be considered from thestandpoint of decomposition of organic com-pounds. The atmosphere proposed by Millerand Urey2 is transparent to ultraviolet radiationdown to 2250A.8 Hull8 states,

A glycine molecule formed in such an atmos-phere is immediately vulnerable to radiationup to 3000A, adsorbing in a part of the solarspectrum far more intense than that which pro-duced it. Decarboxylation of activated glycinewould presumably occur with a quantum effi-ciency of the order of unity. Thus, any glycineformed would be rapidly decomposed.Hull estimates that the half-life of any glycine

molecule is about 30 days; and, this is a muchshorter time than the half-time it would take theglycine molecule to descend to the surface ofthe earth from the stratosphere, where it wouldbe formed. This transport half-time is estimatedat three years from fall-out data.8 Therefore, 97per cent of the glycine would be decomposedbefore it reached the earth.

Recall that the supposed source of energyfor generation of these organic compounds iselectrical discharges in the atmosphere whichis a minor energy source. Such a source, oper-ating at maximum efficiency, could not generatemuch product. The greater source of energy,ultraviolet radiation, would have a destructiveinfluence on any organic material formed.

This destructive energy source is hundredsto thousands of times more abundant than theelectrical energy source.8 Table I shows onlyultraviolet light available below wavelengths of2500A. However, all ultraviolet radiation wave-lengths which are destructive to organic com-pounds must be considered.

Suppose that three per cent of the initiallyformed glycine did fall into the ocean withoutdecomposing. Would it begin to concentratethere in such quantities so as to favor otherspontaneous generation processes? Ultraviolet ra-diation penetrates the ocean to considerabledepth. Ten per cent of the light radiation witha wavelength of 2600A can penetrate sea waterto a depth of six inches, and can penetrate freshwater (which is more like the proposed primi-tive oceans) to a depth of three feet.11 Hull8

states,In the mixed layer above the pycnocline,about 100 meters deep, glycine would have ahalf-life to ultraviolet destruction of about 20years. Even assuming it to be mixed to thebottom of the ocean, with an average depth offour km., the half-life is only 1000 years. These

33

short lives for decompositions in the atmos-phere or ocean clearly preclude the possibilityof accumulating useful concentrations of or-ganic compounds over eons of time.Eventually the rate of formation of glycine

would equal the rate of decomposition, and nofurther glycine would form, Thus, the build-upof high concentrations of glycine would be im-possible.

Groth and von Weysenhoff4 exposed mixturesof CH4, NH3, and H2O vapor to ultraviolet ra-diation (1165-1470A). After an exposure of 1021

quanta, glycine could barely be identified in theproduct. If 0.1µ grams of glycine can be de-tected, then the yield can be calculated.8

It is found that the partial pressure of anyglycine that would be formed would be only1 0-14 atm. If three per cent reached the ocean,and considering its life there, the maximum con-centration in the sea would be 10 -12 molar.8

Hull 8 states:This concentration is far from equilibrium. Theactual concentrations realized would probab-ly lie between 10-27 and 10-12 molar; but eventhe highest admissible value seems hopeless-ly low as starting material for the spontaneousgeneration of life.

SummaryHull’s conclusions are quoted:

The conclusion from these arguments pre-sents the most serious obstacle, if indeed itis not fatal, to the theory of spontaneous gener-ation. First, thermodynamic calculations pre-dict vanishingly small concentrations of eventhe simplest organic compounds. Secondly,the reactions that are invoked to synthesizesuch compounds are seen to be much moreeffective in decomposing them.

Further, it must be remembered that bothlines of argument become quantitatively of anoverwhelmingly greater magnitude when or-ganic compounds other than-the very simplestare considered. From thermodynamics, theequilibrium concentration of glucose is 10-134

at unit activities of the component reactants.The values for the simplest proteins must beunimaginably small. Also, in agreement withthe thermodynamic prediction, the kineticsteady-state concentration falls rapidly withincreasing complexity of organic compounds,because (1) the quantum yield for theirformation decreases; (2) at the same timetheir stability against thermal decompositiondecreases; and (3) their opacity to ultravioletradiation and decomposition by this meansincreases. The physical chemist, guided bythe proved principles of chemical thermody-namics and kinetics, cannot offer any encour-agement to the biochemist who needs an ocean

full of organic compounds to form even life-less coacervates.Miller’s experiment is an excellent one, sci-

entifically speaking. However, mixing watervapor with gases and sparking them in a closedglass system, then selectively removing the pro-ducts certainly does not approximate any sup-posed primitive earth atmosphere.

The experiment simply proves that if thesegases and water vapor are mixed in a closedglass system, sparked, and the reaction productremoved to force the reaction to the right, thensmall amounts of simple organic compoundscan be formed. The extrapolation of this up toa primitive atmosphere is not valid.

If the reacting mixture had been exposed tolarge doses of ultraviolet radiation, and theproducts left in the reacting chamber, the ex-periment would have more closely approximatedsupposed primitive conditions, but it still wouldbe foolish to extrapolate it to a system the sizeof the earth’s atmosphere.

If the postulated primitive atmosphere wasreducing and electrical discharge energy wasutilized to form certain simple amino acids,these compounds must randomly drift aroundin a hostile atmosphere of destructive ultra-violet radiation until eventually some of theproduct possibly could escape to the ocean toreach a limiting concentration there. Miller’sexperiment does not approximate this.

Many evolutionists, when faced with the sec-ond law of thermodynamics, state that the uni-verse or living organisms are open systems; and,thermodynamics can only be applied to closedsystems, which only exist in theory or can beapproximated in a laboratory. The writer hopesto deal with these objections in a later paper,but for now it should be realized that Miller’sexperimental apparatus is a closed system.

The processes observed in this closed systemare simply assumed to be possible in this partof our “open” universe (the earth) many yearsago. Why reject unfavorable thermodynamicresults in closed systems, and accept favorableresults in other closed systems as being appli-cable to a natural situation? Even the favorableresults are not so favorable when examinedclosely.

The line of reasoning of evolutionists can beseen from the various experiments conducted onorganic compound synthesis:

For instance, since the earth’s atmosphere isoxidizing, then experiments were run trying tosynthesize organic compounds under oxidizingconditions. These were not successful, but ex-periments run under reducing conditions weresuccessful. Then the “primitive” earth musthave had a reducing atmosphere.

34

An energy source is needed and, if experimentsutilizing the most abundant sources of energyare unsuccessful or unfavorable, then tests mustbe run employing the minor sources of avail-able energy. If these are successful in the lab-oratory, then these must have been the processesoccurring in spontaneous generation.

Well-trained men, given enough time andfunds, could, through continual laboratory ex-perimentation come up with a seemingly “ex-perimentally proved” process of evolution. Lab-oratory conditions may never even closely ap-proximate any natural situation that ever existed,but men of an evolutionary bent will interpretthe results to suit themselves.

If men will not admit to a creation by God,then they will continue to look for experimentalresults that will suit their assumptions. Suchmen will accept only those results that aid theircause, or, will continue to look for experi-mental results that seemingly fit their theories.Men are in rebellion against God, and this re-bellion is reflected in all of their activities, in-cluding scientific work.

The paper by Miller and Urey is very honestlywritten. They state their assumptions anddirection of effort readily. The opening state-ment of the paper is as follows:2 “Since thedemonstration by Pasteur that life does not arisespontaneously at the present time, the problemof the origin of life has now been one of deter-mining how the first forms of life arose, fromwhich all of the present species have evolved.”

This statement admits that uniformitarianismdoes not hold a satisfactory answer to the originof life. Therefore, to explain the origin of life ascientist must look beyond present known sci-entific processes. For instance, although theatmosphere of the earth is oxidizing, experimentshave shown that spontaneous generation couldonly have taken place under reducing conditions,another violation of uniformitarianism.

Scientist who believe in creation by a directact of God, and believe in a universal flood areridiculed because of their dependence on mirac-ulous events and on catastrophism. Both directcreation and catastrophism are violations of uni-formitarianism.

However, to explain evolution at key points,scientists must deviate from present known con-ditions and from present scientific processes.This is necessary in both the origin of life andthe origin of the universe. This is catastrophismin reverse. Some fortunate or blessed event hap-pened at the necessary time to help the processof evolution in its upward climb.

When a reducing atmosphere on the earthwas necessary, it must have been there. When

any spontaneously-generated organic materialfell to the earth or into the ocean, a non-equi-librium condition must have existed to haveallowed concentration of large quantities of thesechemical compounds, so that the process ofevolution could have continued to another stage.

The evolutionist needs these blessed eventsto explain his theories. The uniformitarian ap-proach offers no help, and, in fact, presentscientific processes allow only for reactions andmechanisms that are destructive to evolution.

Many people think that scientists go into anexperiment unbiased as to the results that willbe obtained. Miller and Urey2 state: “Our dis-cussion is based on the assumption that condi-tions on the primitive earth were favorable forthe production of the organic compounds whichmake up life as we know it.” This is a purelyevolutionary approach, and all results will beinterpreted according to this assumption. Howcan anyone come up with experimental resultsother than those that favor evolution with suchan experimental bias?

It is also thought possible that many of thereactions necessary for spontaneous generationwere catalyzed by the adsorption of organiccompounds on clay and mineral surfaces.2 Itwould indeed by unusual if adsorption proc-esses on these materials did not catalyze at leastsome of the many reactions necessary for chem-ical evolution.

It has been found that the polymerization ofaminoacetonitrite to glycine peptides is accomp-lished in the presence of acid clays.12 But thisdoes not say that this actually happened, orcould it ever be proved that it did happen.Research of this nature will turn up facts notrelated to evolution. Yet, these facts could beutilized by some biased scientists to explaintheoretical evolutionary processes, but actuallythey prove nothing.

This trend of thinking and scientific investi-gation will continue in the same direction aslong as men are determined to rule out God intheir lives. Only when a man accepts the LordJesus Christ as his personal Savior, and yieldshis life to Him. will he begin to realize theuselessness of scientific investigation into theorigin of life and simply believe the Genesisaccount of Creation.

We can learn much of the creation throughscientific research and many beneficial advancescan be made, but science can not legitimatelybe used as a tool to refute the Biblical positionthat God created the physical universe and allthat is in it.

35

References

1A. I. Oparin, The Origin of Life, Macmil lan , NewYork, 1938, Academic Press, New York, 3rd cd., 1957.

2S. L. Miller and H. C. Urey, Science, 130, 245, 1959.3S. L. Miller, Ann. N. Y. Acad Sci, 69, 260, 1957.4W. Groth and H. von Weyssenfoff, Naturwis s en -

schaften, 44, 510, 1957.5A. N. Terenin, Reports of the Moscow Symposium on

the Origin of Life, p. 97, August, 1957.6E. I. Rabinowitch, Photosynthesis, 1, Interscience, New

York, 1945.

7S. L. Miller, Science, 117, 528, 1953.8D. E. Hull, Nature, 186, 693, 1960.9S. L. Miller, J. Am. Chem. Soc., 77, 2341, 1955.10H. A. Bent, The Second Law: An Introduction to Class-

ical and Statistical Thermodynamics, Oxford Univ.Press, New York, 1965.

11L. R. Koller, Ultraviolet Radiation, John Wiley, NewYork, 1952.

12P. H. Abelson, Science, 124, 935, 1956.

MUTATIONS REVEAL THE GLORY OF GOD’S HANDIWORKW ALTER E. LAMMERTS , PH.D.

P. O. Box 496, Freedom, California 9.5019

Mutations have been studied through three levels of investigation: (1) their original discoveryand proof of inheritance according to Mendelian principles; (2) the artificial production of themby radiation and mutagenic chemicals and parallel with this work, the study of their actual be-havior in natural populations; and (3) the molecular genetic approach.

In spite of great enthusiasm and many claims, no investigator has shown as yet that a n ymutation is so advantageous as to spread through an entire species population of plants or animals.Molecular geneticists, such as Seymour Benzer, conclude, “in the DNA of living organisms, typo-graphical errors are never funny and are often fatal.”

The technique used by Benzer in analyzing T4 bacteriophage virus mutations is described, andit is shown that all mutations in this phage are either deletions of varying length, nucleotide basechanges, or addition or loss of a base. When either an addition or loss of a base occurs the re-mainder of the code becomes a nonsense code and the combination is non-functional.

Molecular genetics shows the DNA code to be a marvelously complex one. Surely in studyingit we are coming close to understanding how God is daily at work maintaining and preserving allcreatures.

For many years mutations, or suddenly appear-ing changes in either the appearance or be-havior of individual organisms, have been con-sidered the material basis of evolution. However,as more is learned about the exact nature ofmutations, the less likely do they seem as build-ing blocks for the origin of even varieties, letalone species of plants. Indeed, cyto-genetic re-search, and especially molecular genetics, hasrevealed an ever-increasing complexity of thephysical basis of inheritance called the “gene.”

First Level of InvestigationThe study of mutations has involved probably

three levels of investigation. First, after theirdiscovery by such pioneers as Hugo DeVries,there was the painstaking work of T. Hunt Mor-gan and his associates, Calvin Bridges and A.H. Sturtevant. These men patiently accumulatedinformation on the naturally occurring changes,or mutations, in eye color, wing form, eye struc-ture, bristle arrangement and numerous otherfeatures of the fruit fly, Drosophila melanogaster.

Careful intercrosses and back-crosses showedthat these mutations could be grouped into four

linkage groups corresponding to the four chrom-osomes of the species. Within each chromosomethe mutant genes were located serially, likebeads on a string. The order of their sequencewas determined by crossing-over studies; thosefar apart showing much recombination, whilethose close together, very little. As a result“chromosome mapping” could be done with fairprecision, though odd “clumping” of genes incertain areas remained puzzling. Similar de-tailed chromosome maps were made in corn,tomatoes, flour beetles, and various grains, suchas wheat.

Meanwhile the process of mutation was great-ly speeded up by X-ray irradiation of the fruitfly. Muller first made this discovery in 1928.Here was a way by which biologists could, ina few years, obtain more mutations than Morganand his associates found in a lifetime of patientobservation. Thus quantitative studies as to thepercentage of harmful vs. neutral, or possiblyadvantageous mutations, could easily be made.

Here was the first disappointment for evolu-tion-minded biologists, for most mutations found

36

were harmful. In fact only about one in a thou-sand seemed to be even neutral or showedslight advantage under laboratoy methods ofnutrient agar culture. Unfortunately X-rays didnot prove very effective as regards inducingvariations in plants though some success wasobtained by pollen irradiation in such plants ascorn.

Here again most mutations were semi-steriletypes and many proved to be the result of trans-location so that portions of chromosomes for-merly separate were now attached, and recipro-cally, portions previously in one chromosomewere transfered to another. These recriprocaltranslocations were in fact quite common andmay schematically be represented as follows:

. . . . . . . . . . .Chromosome 1 Chromosome 2

. . . . . . . . . . .Translocated Translocated

Chromosome 1 Chromosome 2

There was considerable enthusiasm for a whilethat translocated chromosomes might explain theorigin of new chromosomal arrangements, butsoon it was found that all were lethal whenhomozygous.

The era from 1920 to 1945 might well betermed the period of great discovery and free-dom to speculate that biologists were findingthe “real” physical basis of evolution. Muta-tions were considered by many biologists asreally new entities, useful as building blocks soto speak by the process of natural selection.

Then came mathematical treatises, by suchmasters at the art, as J. B. S. Haldane, R. A.Fischer, and Sewell Wright. They argued mostconvincingly that even though only one in athousand mutations were advantageous to theextent of even a 1% advantage, these wouldslowly accumulate under the pressure of naturalselection in a population and lead to evolutionarychange.

Thus Patau showed that a mutation with a1% advantage would increase according to thepattern shown in Figure 1. Increase from .01%to .1% of the population would occur only after900,230 generations in a large population.Though millions of years would be needed toeffect the transformation of the small five-toed,dog-sized Eohippus to the modern large one-toed horse, still geologists claimed abundant timewas available, so all seemed well with the gen-eral theory.

Second Level of InvestigationThen came what might be called the second

level of investigation. Population geneticists de-cided to study the actual way in which muta-tions did or did not accumulate under actual

Generations

Figure 1. Showing very slow increase of a recessivemutation with advantage of 1 in 1000.

natural, field conditions. And parallel to theseintensive studies of other means of inducingmutations were conducted which involved useof gamma radiation, neutron radiation, and var-ious mutagenic chemicals.

Thus, as I reported in the 1965 Creation Re-search Society Annual,1 neutron radiation ofaxillary leaf buds, or “budding eyes” of roses,was a highly effective way of obtaining muta-tions. In fact more mutations were obtained bythe radiation of 50 rose “budding eyes” than onecould find in a field of a million rose plants in awhole lifetime of patient searching for “sports.”

Here was a splendid tool also for measuringthe vigor and viability of mutations. For, as ameasuring stick so to speak for calibration, wehad the original unvarying variety easily prop-agated by budding, Accordingly, by rebuddingthe mutant forms at the same time as the originalvariety, and growing under comparable hot-house conditions, accurate comparison as tovigor, pollen fertility, and other characteristicscould be made.

An interesting feature of this work is as fol-lows: although some mutations showed usefulhorticultural variation, such as an increase inpetal number, or loss of the unpopular magentacoloration, ALL without exception were weakerthan the variety originally radiated. This wastrue even with the remarkably vigorous variety,Queen Elizabeth. Some fairly vigorous and in-teresting coral and white mutations were ob-tained, but these failed commercially sincethey were not vigorous enough under varyinggarden conditions.

Similar results were obtained by other work-ers using gamma radiation, and it is now quiteclear that mutations in plants are usually sig-nificantly weaker, or have a reduced fertility,in terms of either the percentage of good pollen,or number of seeds produced per plant. Arti-

37

ficial induction of mutations is useful horticul-turally because sometimes a mutation may showsome much-needed commercially desirablecharacteristic. Thus, even though somewhatmore difficult to grow or giving less seed, sucha variety is worth using. This is particularly trueof ornamental plants. Some of the neutron-in-duced rose variations may prove useful if theoriginal variety is super-vigorous but lacks petalnumber. A mutation from it with enough petalsto be commercially desirable would be worthgrowing even though less vigorous than cer-tain overly vigorous types such as Queen Eliz-abeth.

In recent years, enthusiasm for demonstratingevolution by a study of induced mutations hasabout died out, since clear-cut cases of obviouslyadvantageous mutations simply do not occur.

Meanwhile such population geneticists asBand 2 were showing what natural selection canand cannot do. Her work was with fluctuationsin naturally occurring out-door populations ofthe fruit fly, D. melanogaster, so carefullystudied under laboratory conditions from 1947until 1962. One of her most remarkable con-clusions was that natural selection does notincrease the most viable or best true-breedinglines or homozygotes in natural populations!

Most pertinent were observations made fol-lowing the unusually severe winter of 1960-61 atAmherst, Massachusetts. September tempera-tures were the highest on record and the sampleswere collected then. In 1962 collections weremade during the driest season on record. Theresults of genetic analysis of variability and via-bility in 1961 and 1962 were compared to themore normal season of 1960 and the earlier onesof 1947-49. Her conclusions follow:

1) Natural selection is highly efficient inmaintaining population fitness during stress as inthe summer of 1962. The effects are shown onlyin the heterozygotes.

2) Stabilizing selection has led to the re-tention of most components of genetic diversity.

3) There is no evidence of improvement inviability of the homozygotes (those showing themutation and breeding true for it.)

4) No decrease in genetic load was shown.This is because most load components (recessivemutations) remain concealed in the randomheterozygotes.

5) Hence joint effects of directional selectionand stabilization are directed to the interactionof genes and gene complexes in the heterozygousc o n d i t i o n .

6) A slight reduction in total genetic diversityresulted from stress conditions.

Band does not stress the most interesting con-clusion: namely, that there is no evidence thatselection has been primarily directed to the elim-ination of harmful variations or mutants. Neitherdo such variants appear to reduce the viabilityof the heterozygote. Her Figure 1 is fascinatingin that it shows no improvement in averageviability of the homozygotes mutations, or anyreduction in the magnitude of the genetic load.

From the viewpoint of evolving new charac-teristics these conclusions are indeed pertinent.The only source of new and distinctive featuresleading possibly to species formation are muta-tions. These must gradually be accumulated intrue breeding or homozygous conditions, sinceof course species and even varieties differ fromeach other in various traits which are constant.

Yet Band’s research shows that even the mostviable homozygotes do not increase in number.Furthermore no improvement in their viabilityoccurs. Since even drastic mutations show noharmful effect, if recessive in the heterozygcuscondition, there simply is no mechanism foreliminating them. Now the ratio of “harmful” to“useful” mutations is at least 1000 to 1. Quiteobviously, if a species really did evolve bynatural selection, the genetic load of drastic orharmful mutations would become so high in afew hundred generations as to result in all off-spring having some defect, because of chancemating of identical genotypes and resultinghomozygosity. The fortunate fact that this isnot yet true, in the human race or in most plantand animal species, argues strongly for thespecial creation of the species unit, and espec-ially for its existence for a relatively short timeinstead of hundreds of thousands or millions ofyears.

Catastrophic SelectionWith the discovery, that strains of bacteria

resistant to penicillin, aureomycin or chloro-mycetin always showed up, when these drugswere used to effect cures of various diseases,great enthusiasm was aroused for a while amongevolution-minded biologists. Here at last was“proof” that beneficial mutations really did occur.

But enthusiasm was short lived, for it soon be-came clear that these mutations did not ariseas a result of exposure to penicillin. Rather theyseem to occur at a constant rate. Associated withthe resistance, there always is a decrease inviability under normal conditions. Accordingly,under normal conditions, they are soon“swamped out;” and, either are completely elim-inated, or are carried along as heterozygotes ina very small number of individual bacteria. Nowmost bacterial cells appear to be haploid, butthere is increasing evidence that sexuality does

38

occur; hence some cells are, for a time at least,diploid; hence heterozygosity does occur evenin bacteria.

When a strain is exposed to antibiotics, eitherthe mutation rate for these otherwise defectiveresistant mutations is so high that sooner or laterone occurs, or an already established one isgiven the starting advantage of having no normalcompetitors. Soon the entire population is ofthe resistant type, and new medication is neces-sary. However, as soon as treatment is re-laxed, the normal type bacteria take over, andthe resistant strain is either eliminated or re-duced to a minute fraction of a percentage ofthe population.

The story has been remarkably well pre-sented as regards the housefly in a recent issueof California Agriculture in an article entitled“Housefly Resistance To Insecticides.”3 The con-clusions on the housefly parallel those basedupon studies of bacteria. Thus, the article authorwrites:

It is now well established that the develop-ment of increased ability in insects to sur-vive exposure is not induced directly by theinsecticides themselves. These chemicals donot cause the genetic changes in insects; theyonly serve as selective agents, eliminating themore susceptible insects and enabling themore tolerant survivors to increase and fillthe void created by destruction of susceptibleindividuals.

There are several fascinating observations:1) Resistance to DDT and dieldrin continued

at a high level in an area where these sprays wereused, in spite of the flies not having been sprayedwith either chemical for about ten years. Inother words, once established, resistant strainsmaintained themselves without selection pres-sure.

2) Flies at a cattle feed lot and at a nearbypoultry ranch showed little resistance to anyorganophosphates or carbonates, since they hadnot been sprayed very often with them. Yetagricultural crops in the area had been treatedregularly. Evidently the resistant strain of flies,though able to maintain itself once established,is incapable of spreading through the wholerange of species even in a given area such asBlythe, where this observation was made. Surelyflies in the nearby agricultural area became re-sistant from frequent spraying of the crops, yetfeed lots and poultry farms had a low level ofresistance. Also in no instance were 100% ofthe flies, even in the most exposed areas, resistantto the chemicals used.

Figure 2. Diagrammatic representation of T-2 Bacterio-phage magnified 500,000 diameters. Weighs 100million times the hydrogen atom. Head has 1 chrom-osome with 200,000 base pairs (After electronmicrograph, Benzer, p. 71. )

Third Level of InvestigationAn explanation of just why most mutations

were harmful, or once established, tended tomaintain themselves at various percentages ofthe total natural population without furtherselection pressure. was so far wanting. With theadvent of molecular genetics the third level ofunderstanding has now been reached.

Thus Seymour Benzer4 has found that the T4

bacteriophage, which infects the colon bacillus.is a most useful organism for mapping in detailthe molecular limits of gene structure. In a 20minute experiment by use of a single test tube,a quantity of genetic data can be obtained, whichwould require the entire human population ofthe earth, if such a complex organism were usedfor study!

Phages are virus organisms characterized bya hexagonal-looking head, and a complex tail bywhich they attach themselves to the bacilluswall. (Figure 2) Within the head is a long-chainmolecule of DNA having a weight of about100 millions times that of hydrogen. After attach-ment, the DNA alone moves into the bacilluscell and takes over reorganization of the cellmachinery to manufacture 100 or so copies of acomplete virus and the bacterial cell then burstsopen liberating these virus organisms.

It is estimated that the DNA contains about200,000 base pairs. Each base pair is one letterof a minimum three letter word which mayspecify which of the 20 odd amino acids is tobe linked up into a polypeptides chain. Some-times an entire “paragraph” of such “words” isneeded to specify the sequence of amino acidsneeded for just one polypeptides chain and sev-eral such chains are needed for a complexprotein.

Now “typographical” errors may occur in thereplication of the DNA molecule. Transposi-tions, deletions, additions, or inversions mayoccur. As Seymour Benzer says, “In a daily

39

Figure 3. Showing how deletions are used to test lo-cation of mutants.

newspaper the result is often humorous. In theDNA of living organisms, typographical errorsare never funny and are often fatal.” (Em-phasis added)

However these “typographical” errors or mu-tations can be used to analyze a small portionof the information carried by a T4 bacteriophage,and thus reveal the amazing complexity of notonly the DNA code, but the very processes ofcellular activity as well.

One group of mutants called rH mutants canbe identified quite easily by the appearance ofthe plaques or clear regions they form on thesurface of a culture in a glass dish where phageparticles have multiplied and destroyed the bac-terial cells. The shape and size of these plaquesare hereditary characteristics of the phage thatcan be easily identified and scored. A plaqueproduced in several hours will contain about 10million phage particles, the progeny of a singlephage particle.

Now the T4 phage can produce plaques oneither host strain B or K. This standard formgives rise to rH mutants easily recognizable bya distinctive plaque on B cultures. But thesemutants cannot form plaques on bacterial strainK. This is the “key” to the whole mapping tech-nique used by Benzer; for an rH mutant cangrow on bacterial strain K, if the cell is simul-taneously infected with a particle of the standardtype. The function of the standard type phagehas been traced to a small portion of the T4

phage genetic map known as the rH region.As mentioned before, various different-appear-

ing plaques or mutants arise spontaneously inthis area. These may be crossed with each otherby adding each of them to a liquid culture ofB cells. This gives an opportunity for the pro-geny to recombine portions of genetic informa-tion from either parent.

If the two mutants resulted from typographicalerrors in different parts of the DNA molecule,some individuals of the standard type will beregenerated. A sort of “crossing-over” occurs.(See Figure 3) These reconstructed standardswill produce plaques on the K strain, whereas

the original mutants cannot. In this way onecan detect a single recombination among billionsof offspring. This allows the resolution of tworH mutants that are only one base apart in theDNA molecular chain.

The exact mechanism of recombination is notknown. However, it seems that two defectiveDNA molecules may actually break apart toform one non-defective molecule which then isreplicated; or, in the course of replication, theremay be “copy choice,” such that only good por-tions of the two mutant molecules are “copied.”This appears to me as granting quite a remark-able power of selectivity to some “curative”agency in the T4 phage cell.

At any rate, the results of a long and elabor-ate study of hundreds of non-reverting rH mu-tants shows that all can be represented as con-taining deletions of one size or another in asingle linear structure. By contrast, the rHmutants discussed above behave as if their alter-ations were localized at single points. By testingagainst the non-reverting segments at this par-ticular area of the T4 phage DNA molecule, allmutants located within a given segment will notrecombine when tested against it. (Figure 4)

By use of about 80 such non-reverting segmentmutations, the rH point mutations may beassigned to the proper one. Finally, those lo-calized in one small segmental deletion lengthor segment are tested against each other. Thoseshowing recombination are obviously at differ-ent sites; and, then, each site is named after themutant indicating its location. Finally, the orderof the sites within a given segment can be es-tablished by measuring the recombination fre-quencies.

Of an estimated 350 sites in this small area,about 250 have been located, and only a hundredor so remain to be found. All are defective. Fur-thermore, certain chemicals, such as 5-bromour-acil, increase the mutation rate at certain sitesby a factor of 10,000 or more, yet affect nochange at other sites. All of these also are de-fective changes.

Where then are the “good” mutations, neededfor evolutionary progression?

The reason for this state of affairs is clearlyshown in a paper by F. H. C. Crick5 in the Scien-tific American for October of 1962. He shows thatthe sites discovered by Benzer correspond tochanges in the DNA base nucleotides. Mostly,the defects are the result of adding or deletingone base, or at most a small group of bases, andare not merely the result of altering one of them.Such addition can be produced at random bycompounds called acridines. Just how this chem-ical works is not fully understood. However,since the resulting changes can be combined or

40

broken up, there seems little doubt as to thefact that they are additions or deletions.

As has been explained by Duane T. Gish,6 thesimplest code by which 20 amino acids couldbe specified involves at least three nucleotidepairs, or a triplet of "letters" such as ATT, GCA,TCG, ACC. (A-adenine, C-cytosine, T-thymine,and G-guanine ) The “message” evidently beginsat a fixed point at one end of the gene, and isread three bases at a time. Then, if for somereason the reading starts at the wrong point, themessage would fall into the wrong sets of three,and so would be incorrect. For each correctreading of the code there are two incorrect ones.

That is why the addition or deletion of a basein most parts of the gene makes it completelynon-functional. The reading from that pointonward would be totally wrong. Experimentally,this meant that if an additional base of plus mu-tation is combined with a plus, the combinationis non-functional.

Likewise a minus with a minus is non-func-tional. But, if a plus is combined with a minusclose to it, the function is restored. This is be-cause, starting at one end of the rH region ofthe B cistron, or gene, the message would beread correctly until the extra mutation-causingbase was reached. Then, the message would notmake “sense” until the location of the minus mu-tation or missing base is reached, after whichthe message would come back into phase ormake “sense” again.

In other words, the function of the rH part ofthe B gene does not seem to be important. Ac-cordingly, the message can be “wrong” for a shortdistance, and still be functional. But, if the dis-tance is very long between the plus and minusmutations, the combination will not function.This is shown in Figure 4, adapted from Crick’spaper.

Now, if only a sequence of three bases isneeded to specify an amino acid, 64 could bespecified instead of the actual 20 available. Offhand, it would seem that most “messages’” arenonsense messages or triplets. However, theexperimental results show that most of the 64possible triplets, or codons, are not nonsense,but actually stand for amino-acids. Hence prob-ably more than one codon can “call” for thesame amino acid.

The picture emerging from the work of molec-ular geneticists is a marvelously complex codewhich will stand mighty little in the way of alter-ation, either addition, or subtraction, or changeof any of the nucleotide bases. Only becausethe rH region is relatively unimportant in func-tion was it possible to accumulate the large num-ber of mutations, making possible the detailed

Wildtype GeneC A T C A T C A T C A T C A T C A T C A T C A T

Base addedC A T C A T G C A T C A T C A T C A T C A T C A

Base removedC A T C A T C A T C A T C T C A T C A T C A T C

Base added—base removedC A T C A T G C A T C A T A T C A T C A T C A T

The imaginary message is CAT, CAT . . . Adding ofa base shifts the reading to TCA, TCA. Removing abase makes it ATC, ATC. Addition and removal putsthe message in phase again. The reading is from leftto right in triplets of 3 nucleotide bases.

Figure 4. Showing effect of mutations.

analysis of this rather minute portion of theT4 phage DNA molecule. Now evidently, mostportions of this molecule code message is soimportant, that even a short portion out ofphase causes a completely non-functional “mes-sage,” hence mutations do not survive.

The virus organism has only one chromosome;yet, “higher” animals, including man and, ofcourse, all of the plants except algae, have manychromosomes—each one made up of organizedprotein and DNA molecules. How did this or-ganization come into being?

The only solution so far offered by evolution-minded molecular geneticists is a sort of molecu-lar level “polyploidy.” They picture an organismsuch as a bacterium, which has a single circularchromosome, as giving rise to one with twochromosomes. Then, presumably, mutationscould accumulate in the “extra” chromosome,and be shielded by the normal genes of theoriginal one. But, sooner or later, sexual unionor conjugation of two bacteria would occur.Then, some of the resulting descendants wouldhave only a pair of the “new” chromosomes, andno original normal genes to shield them fromthe possibility of having a lack of balance inthe plus or minus mutations, which occurredduring the time before conjugation.

Surely, it is stretching credulity a bit to pic-ture these “new” chromosome pairs as havingsuch a finely balanced set of plus and minus mu-tants as to have “correct’” messages for all neededfunctions. In fact, it is difficult to see how anyreally new functions, such as the change fromsingle celled organisms like bacteria to even thesimplest multicellular green algae, such as aPleurococcus, could ever come about by accum-

4 1

ulation of such defects as are so far reportedby molecular geneticists.

It is true that the very nature of such experi-ments, as those of Benzer, where the K strain isused to reveal recombination, would tend toconcentrate attention on defective changes. Still,since these are picked up as changes in appear-ance of plaques on the B strain, some should beof a positive nature and grow on the K strainbetter than the standard type. Such seem neverto have been found or at least remain unre-ported.

From the creation viewpoint, we could ofcourse expect the DNA system to be a mar-velously intricate one. Since designed to accom-plish very complex tasks even in the “simplest”organism such at a T4 phage virus, it obviouslycould stand little in the way of tinkering. Infact, in light of the picture of just how DNA,RNA, the ribosomes, and the cytoplasm inter-act to form the needed proteins, we cannot butmarvel at the complexity of all these reactionstaking place at one time in a single cell.

Surely, the ingenuity of man is taxed to findways of experimentally solving the exact wayin which even a “simple” type of phage operates.

Should we not then be filled with a feeling ofreverent awe at the glory of God’s handiworkas shown by this revelation of the complex wayin which His created organisms carry on, theirtasks? Truly the calling of a molecular biologistis a great one. Let us hope, that some of ouryoung creation minded students approach thisfield, realizing that here they are coming closeto seeing God at work as He daily maintains andpreserves all creatures.

Literature Cited1Lammerts, Walter E., "Planned Induction of Commer-

cially Desirable Variation in Roses by Neutron Radia-tion,” Creation Research Society Annual, 1965; pp.39-48.

2Band, H. T., “Natural Selection and Concealed GeneticVariability in a Natural Population of D. melanogaater,”Evolution, 18:3, pp. 334-404.

3Georghiou, C. P. et al., “Housefly Resistance to Insec-ticides,” California Agriculture 19:10, pp. 8-10.

4Benzer, Seymour, “The Fine Structure of the Gene,”Scientific American, January, 1962.

5Crick, F.H.C., “The Gentic Code,” Scientific American,October, 1962.

6Gish, Duane T., “DNA: Its History and Potential,”Creation Research Society Annual, 1967, pp. 13-17.

IS DNA ONLY A MATERIAL CAUSE?DR. HAROLD ARMSTRONG

Queens College, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

By means of philosophical considerations and, secondly, through specific examination of ex-perimental facts, the author inestigates the notion that DNA is “the secret of life.”

An objection is raised that use of the word “code” in references to DNA involves nothing morethan a metaphor. This and other objections are studied regarding DNA as a material, efficient, andformal cause. Objection is raised against the idea that memory is the encoding of experiences inDNA.

Examination of experimental data brings out denial of the normal expectation that complicatedorganisms would have larger amounts of DNA than less complex forms. Facts indicate that DNAis influenced by environment as well as heredity.

Comparisons are presented between results of in vitro and in vivo experiments involving DNA.The author concludes from his theoretical arguments and from experimental evidence that

DNA is not the whole cause of life and heredity. DNA is a material cause, but the author assertsthere still must be a formal cause.

The one thing that most distinguishes livingbeings is their ability to reproduce themselves.In so doing, they are, of course carrying outGod’s command to “Be fruitful, and multiply. . .,"(Genesis 1:22).

It is true, perhaps, as has sometimes been re-marked, that things which are not living, forinstance crystals under suitable circumstances,may “grow.” Be that as it may, certainly thethings which are not living do not show the

same striving to reproduce themselves; if thecrystals ever received a commandment to mul-tiply they have not yet done much about it.

A second difference is that the living things arealike "after their kind" (Genesis 1:24); muchmore so than those that are not living. A snow-flake, for instance, is a common crystal, orcollection of crystals. Whether or not it be true,as is so often said, that no two snowflakes arealike, certainly there is much variety among

42

them, much more than there would be amongbees in a swarm.

A third feature of living beings is nutrition.Metaphorically, it is true, we say that a fire is“fed;” we might say the same about a crystalgrowing from a solution. But any unprejudicedperson would say that there is a difference; aliving being uses its food in a discriminatingway: some goes to its growth, some to mainte-nance, and some to act as fuel to keep life going.This is quite different from the “feeding” of acrystal in which material merely happens uponcertain sites and sticks there. The crystal, in asense is an effect of the solution and of the cir-cumstances; the living being, on the other hand,is in some way a cause.

This brings up a fourth point. The word“cause” suggests action with a purpose: the kindof action which we do as a result of thought.Thought, so far as we know, does not existapart from life (not necessarily corporeal life );it might not be going too far to say that life doesnot exist apart from the action with a purposewhich, in us, would be considered as or relatedto thought.

Kinds of CausesSince we have had to consider causes, let us

look into that notion a little more. We maydistinguish four kinds of cause, as Aristotle did:material, formal, efficient, and final. l Of astatue (to use Aristotle’s own example), thematerial cause is the marble; the formal, thepattern of the finished statue, which was inthe sculptor’s mind before it was in the statue;the efficient, the sculptor and his tools; and thefinal, the sculptor’s fee and his fame as an artist.We shall shortly use these distinctions profit-ably.

What we want to investigate is the notion thatDNA is the "secret of life.” First of all, whatdoes such a statement mean? Presumably itmeans that it is the presence and activity of DNAthat gives living beings their abilities. Is sucha statement true? That is what we have to in-vestigate.

Since the common theory has been discussedfor several years, and is considered elsewherein this Annual, there is no need to describe it atlength here. It is enough to notice that mol-ecules of DNA are supposed to be duplicated,an existing molecule acting as a template fora new one, as if, in the building of a house, abrick acted as a mould for making anotherbrick. Thus the appropriate proteins are builtup. Also, enzymes are formed, which somehowinfluence the larger features of the growingcreature. The whole proposed “mechanism” isoften spoken of as the “genetic code.”

Objection to DNA As CodeHere an objection must be raised. So far, the

word “code” is nothing more than a metaphor,and there are codes and codes. Until more hasbeen said, nothing will really have been ex-plained.

Is the “code” something like the Morse code?But this would require an intelligent beingto read the code, and to do something aboutit with suitable organs. Is it like the punchedcards of a Jacquard loom? This would re-quire a mechanism to be operated by the code,a mechanism, moreover, much more complicatedthan the code, if our experience with automaticmachines is at all applicable. (And if it isnot, we are using words without meanings.)

The DNA would, it would seem, be consideredin some sense a cause of the growing organism.But in what sense? Which of the four causeswould it be? To elaborate on the distinctionsbetween them, as Aristotle said2, “cause” means:(1) that from which, as an immanent material,a thing comes into being . . . (2) the form . . .,(3) that from which the change, (here the pro-duction) first begins . . ., and (4) the end.

Of these we may remark that: (2) the formis immaterial, for “the soul is the place offorms”3 (3) the efficient cause does not remainin the effect; and, (4) the end is surely notDNA. It is true that someone once said that “ahen is an egg’s way of producing another egg,”but actually to believe such a thing is not onlyto put the cart before the horse, but also tomistake the cart for the horse.

So, the remaining possibility is that DNAis a material cause. Of course, a material, tobe a material cause, need not be the only ma-terial, or even the one used in the greatestamount. A tiny amount of a crucial materialmay have a very large effect.

A striking example of this is the effect ofiridium or antimony, added to the extent ofmaybe only a few parts per million, on ger-manium for making transistors. Again, the de-sign of a masonry structure might depend onthe kind of mortar to be used; and an examina-tion of old wooden buildings will show howtheir design was influenced by the use of pegsrather than nails.

Further Objections to DNALet us now consider some more objections

to the notion that DNA could be an efficientor formal cause. (For this is what the commontheory really means, although it is not put intothese words. Supporters of this theory usuallydo not even consider finality. )

It has been common to imagine huge auto-matic machines, capable of many intricate tasks,

43

and to say that living things are somehow likethem.

Elsasser 4 has investigated this question, andpoints out that if a molecule of DNA, or awhole germ cell for that matter, somehow causesthe whole organism, in the way alleged by thecommon theory, it must contain a tremendousamount of information. In fact, the informationrequired could be stored only by assigningmeanings to various dispositions of atoms. Evenso, there would not be room for much redun-dancy (over-abundant, excessive amount) ofinformation.

On the other hand, the disposition of individ-ual atoms is (to say the least!), a very ephemeralthing. Any stability of information requireenormous redundancy, which, as we just saw,could not be fitted in. Thus, Elsasser concludes,any mechanistic theory which makes hereditydepend on mechanically stored informationsimply will not work.

Another quite apt illustration may be drawnfrom the “degeneration of workmanship.” Sup-pose that a man had a machine shop, equippedwith new machines. Using those machines, hecould build a second lot of machines, a second“generation” so to speak, nominally duplicatingthe first generation. But only nominally, forinevitably errors, tolerances, etc., will combineto make the second generation a little worse thanthe first.

And if the second generation of machines isused to build a third generation, it in turn willbe yet worse, and so on. After a certain numberof generations the machines would be so “bad”as to be almost useless.

It is hard to see how living things, if theydepend on a material “code,” would not under-go a similar degeneration. Now though somedegeneration, as expressed by mutation doesoccur, the most harmful mutations are sooneliminated by natural selection.

Of course, machines do not degenerate fromgeneration to generation, because the toolmakerintervenes. For instance, he can make a surfaceplate–a plane surface–independently of theaccuracy of any machine. He does this bymaking three plates, and scraping them until anytwo will fit together over their whole surface.Then they are all truly plane. Notice, though,that he did this by referring to the form of theplane surface which was in his soul.

Another point which Elsasser has made is thatif information be stored corporeally at all inliving beings, it is stored in the softest and ap-parently most unstable parts. If a lobster, forinstance, stores information, it is in the softparts of his body, not in his shell.

Nor is the chemical storage of information,which has sometimes been suggested, in anybetter position. For most of the reactions inthe body are close to equilibrium, and thusvery subject to fluctuations.

Incidentally, the soft and delicate parts ofthe organism, in which information is supposedto be stored, are just those in which metabolismgoes on most strongly. This means that thecomponents are changed very frequently, which,again, does not fit in well with any corporealstorage of information. No one would print in-formation needed permanently on the scratchpad beside the telephone.

Is Memory Encoded in DNA?Heredity and the maintenance of the body

during a being’s life (so that, for instance, aman’s fingerprints remain the same although hisskin changes many times ) would seem to beclosely related. Memory, in the ordinary sense ofthe word, has at least some similarity to thesethings. So it has been suggested that memory isthe encoding of experiences in DNA.

However, recently, this has been challenged.It had been reported that planaria, which hadlearned to do certain tasks, were fed to otherplanaria, which then showed the same abilities.But it now seems that nine laboratories, whichhave been trying to duplicate these alleged re-sults, have been unable to do so.5

Moreover, mice, into whose brains had beeninjected drugs which inhibit the synthesis ofRNA and protein, were still able to learn and toremember. In fact, there seem to be difficultiesin the way of any theory of memory whichmakes it a purely corporeal thing.

No doubt the brain has something to do withmemory. Yet, it seems that memory itself (asdistinguished from the ability to act on mem-ory), is not harmed by the removal of some ofthe brain. Moreover, memory itself does notseem to be localized in particular parts of thebrain.6

It is, perhaps, not certain that memory, hered-ity, and the development of the individualare all connected. There is though, one con-sideration which seems to point in that direction.

We ourselves, when we set out to make some-thing, rely on memory; even if there is a patternbefore us we have to remember how to read it,how to use the tools, and, indeed, even thatwe set out to make such and such a thing.

Now memory in this sense is certainly con-ditioned by the mind; we are not always think-ing about how to read a blueprint, but can turnour attention to it when we wish. So an activityof the mind is involved here. And mind, in thestrictest sense, seems to be incorporeal.

44

In support of this view, we can perhaps dono better than recall Aristotle’s argument that asfor corporeal functions, including the senses inso far as they are corporeal, ( and the same couldbe said of muscular activities), a strong exerciseof the function leaves it impaired for a while.For instance, one is temporarily blinded by astrong light. But the exercise of the mind onsomething which is highly intelligible leaves itmore, rather than less, able to deal with othermatters.7

Examination of Experimental DataSo far, this discussion has been rather philo-

sophical. Indeed, that is nothing to be ashamedof; for to discuss a thing philosophically is to tryto know what we are talking about, and to talksense about it. On the other hand, we can reasonabout anything only by starting from somepremises, and if the question has to do withexperimental facts some of the premises shouldcome from experiment.

So let us consider some experimental facts.Many of these are collected in the writings ofCommoner, who is one of the strong contendersagainst the view that the whole “secret of life”is contained in DNA.8-11

First of all, while we certainly should notunderrate the humbler creatures, yet anyonewould agree that a man is much more compli-cated than an amoeba. Now, as Commoner haspointed out, if the development of the creatureis governed by DNA, it would be natural toexpect the more complicated creature to havethe larger amount of DNA.

Is this, in fact, what is found? It is not. Man’scells, for instance, contain about 7 picograms ofDNA each; but those of the African lungfishcontain about 100 picograms, and the cells ofAmphiuma, a primitive amphibian, about 168picograms. l2-14

On the other hand, there is a case in which twovery similar species of insect, although mor-phologically indistinguishable, differ by 50% inthe amount of DNA in their cells.15 This wouldsuggest that, at least in part, the function ofDNA is something other than to serve as a “car-rier of structural information,”

Another fact pointing to this same conclusionis the evidence that the formation of DNA isitself a more involved thing than the copying oftemplates. The static specificity of DNA, (i.e.,its nucleotide sequence), is, it seems, regulatednot only by the nucleotide sequence of thetemplate, but also in part by the specificity ofthe polymerase enzymes which catalyse DNAsynthesis. l6,17

In other words, DNA, the supposed “vehicleof heredity,” is itself influenced by environ-

ment as well as by heredity. Indeed, the sharplyenhanced rate of mutation, which has been ob-served in bacteria under conditions of extremethymine deprivation, suggests: (1) that analteration in the nucleotide sequence of theDNA occurs under these conditions, and, thus,(2) that the specificity of the DNA synthesismay be partly controlled by the concentrationof available free nucleotides.18-22

Experiments on Synthesis of DNASome experiments in which DNA is synthe-

sized in vitro have a bearing on our question.Three things are involved: some DNA put in as a“primer,” the necessary enzyme, the DNA poly-merase; and the necessary deoxynucleatides.Some experiments in which DNA primers fromvarious sources were used along with polymerasefrom Escherchia coli showed that the nature ofthe resulting DNA was affected by the poly-merase as well as by the primer.23

If the DNA primer and the enzyme are fromthe same organism the new DNA will be thesame as the primer DNA within 5%. But, if theprimer and the enzyme are from separate dif-fering species of organisms, the disparity ofsequence of the new DNA and the primer DNAis as much as 17.25 percent! The precision ofprotein synthesis also depends on both the DNAcode and the specificity of the synthetic en-zyme. Also the pH, magnesium content orconcentration, and temperature affect the reac-tion system. As Commoner sums it all up, “Selfduplication and biochemical specificity is aproperty of an intact whole cell, which is aninheritably complex system, and not the prop-erty of one or another molecule. We can ignorethis fact only at the price of self-delusion.”

On the other hand, in vivo experiments haveshown that the precision with which an intactE. coli cell is capable of regulating the specificityof the proteins, which it synthesizes, dependsnot only on the specificity provided by the DNAgenetic agent, but also on the amino-acyl RNAsynthetase which is involved.24

DNA as Other Than CodeThere are other observations which it is diffi-

cult to fit in with the notion of a “code,” butwhich favour another interpretation. For a widerange of creatures, the amount of DNA in a cellis about proportional to the volume of the cell.(That is to say, the ratio of amount of DNAper cell to the volume of a typical cell is aboutthe same for a wide variety of creatures. )

Moreover, the rates of consumption of oxygen,and of metabolism, are about inversely propor-tional to the amount of DNA per cell.8 Com-moner suggests that this is because

45

DNA synthesis and the resultant sequestra-tion of the catalytic nucleotides which areactive in the oxidation electron transport sys-tem will tend to reduce the rate of catabolicdegradation of the metabolites. In turn, thismay be expected to increase the relative pro-portion of the available metabolites whichenter into the anabolic process and therebycontribute to the synthesis of cell substance. . . one may anticipate a positive correla-tion between the DNA content and the overallsize characteristic of the mature cell and anegative correlation between DNA contentand the cell’s characteristic rate of oxidativemetabolism.8

Which, in other words, means that DNA ishere acting as some sort of material cause. Onthe other hand, as Commoner concludes, inanother place, “The unique precision of thechemistry of intact biological appears to be con-ditioned, in some as yet unknown way, by theinherent structural organization of the cell.”10

To which one might add: “that is to say, bythe form–the formal cause.”

There are other points which might be men-tioned. There seems to be evidence to show thatin special cases certain features can be inheritedindependently of DNA. And more important,even though it were established that DNAsomehow arranges the growth of cells, no oneseems even to have suggested a way in whichit could control the pattern of a flower, say, orthe structure of a bird’s feathers. To say thatit is “by enzymes” is just to imitate the dearold lady who said that machinery works “withscrews, somehow.” Moreover, it is undoubtedlytrue that living beings, as they grow, adaptthemselves to the circumstances to some extent.It is hard to see how this could be if their de-velopment were completely controlled by a“code,” like the working of an automatic screwmachine.

ConclusionNow to conclude this discussion. Theoretical

arguments and experimental evidence have beengiven to show that DNA is not the whole causeof life and of heredity. Indeed, anyone whoholds the doctrine of the four causes would nothave expected otherwise. And if anyone doubtsthat doctrine, it is suggested that he try tothink of a case in which he knows that there arenot the four causes (as distinguished from notknowing what they are).

On the other hand, DNA seems to be a causein some sense, and an immanent one. So itmust be a material cause. But a very special andcrucial material; hence it is not surprising that

it has a great effect on the development of thecreature.

But there must still be a formal cause, andthat can be only in a soul, or that which standsin the same relation to a single cell as the souldoes to the whole creature. (It is sufficient hereto take the word “soul” in Aristotle’s sense; theChristian sense includes and goes beyond that).

The two other causes exist, but this argumentis not especially concerned with them.

An account such as this, then, which satisfiesthe biology without doing violence to the meta-physics, seems to be what we set out to find.

References1Aristotle, “Physics,” Book 2, Chapter 3.2Aristotle, “Metaphysics,” Book 5, Chapter 2.3Aristotle, “On the Soul,” Book 3, Chapter 4.4W. M. Elsasser, The Physical Foundations of Biology.

Pergamon Press, New York, 1958 (especially pp. 120-160).

5S. H. Barondes, of the Albert Einstein College of Medi-cine, at a recent meeting of the American associationfor the Advancement of Science, at Washington, re-ported m the Whig-Standard, Kingston, Ontario, Can-ada, 5 January 1967, p. 8.

6Elsasser, op. cit. pp. 133 and 137.7Aristotle, “On the Soul,” Book 3, Chapter 4.8B. Commoner, Nature, Vol. 202, pp. 960-968, 6 June

1964.913. Commoner, Nature, Vol. 203, PP. 486-491, 1 August

1964.10B. Commoner, Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics,

Vol. 6, pp. 273-278, May and June 1965.11B. Commoner, Science, Vol 133, pp 1745-1748, 2

June 1961.12C. Vendrely, Bull. Biol. France and Belg., Vol. 86, P. 1,

1952.13R Vendrely and C Vendrely, C. R. Soc. Biol., Vol. 235,

p. 444, 1952.14A. E. Mirsky and H. Ris, J Gen Physiol., Vol 34, p.

451, 1951.15F. Schrader and S. Hughes-Schrader, Chromosome,

Vol. 7, p. 469, 1952.16H. K. Schachman, J. Adler, C. M. Radding, I. R.

Lehman, and A. Kornberg, J. Biol. Chem., Vol. 235,p. 3242, 1960.

17J. Jesse, A. D. Kaiser, and A. Kornberg, J. Biol. Chem.,Vol. 236, p 864, 1961.

18E. Chargaff, Essays on Nucleic Acids. Elsevier, Am-sterdam, 1963.

19L. R. Cavaliere and B. H. Rosenberg, Ann. Rev. Bio-chem, Vol. 31, p. 247, 1962.

20R. Hendler, Science, Vol. 142, p. 402, 1962.21B. Commoner, Science, Vol. 133, p. 1445, 1961.22B. Commoner, Horizons in Biochemistry. Academic

Press, New York, 1962.23I. R. Lehman, S. B. Zimmerman, J. Adler, M. J Bess-

man, E. S. Simms, and A. Kornberg, Proc. U. S.Nat. Acad. Sci., Vol. 44, p. 1191, 1958.

24W. E. Barnett and K. B. Jacobson. Proc. U. S, Nat.Acad. Sci., Vol. 51, p. 642, 1964.

46

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES HAVING THE CREATIONPOINT OF VIEW

D R. WALTER E. LAMMERTS

Freedom, California

SO often letters are received from parents whowish to know where they can send their boysand girls for a genuinely Christian and “oldtime” Creationist point of view. Therefore, wefeel it would be a fine service to our members,if each issue, we featured such a college.

Since many of us on the editorial board aremembers of Lutheran Church—Missouri SynodChurches, we are deliberately bypassing for themoment such fine colleges as Concordia Seniorand Junior Colleges, which will be presentedin future issues. Also, by not mentioning a col-lege in this series, we do not necessarily meanthat it is theistic evolutionary in its point ofview.

Accordingly, we are very pleased to beginthis series with the Bob Jones University. Twoof their present faculty members: Emmett L.Williams and George Mulfinger, either have orwill soon have written articles for our publica-tion. Director of Admissions David Christ kindlysent me the following data regarding their po-sition on Creation and evolution.

Bob Jones University stands without apologyfor the “old time religion” and the absoluteauthority of the Bible. The University creed isas follows:

I believe in the inspiration of the Bible, boththe Old and the New Testaments; the creationof man by the direct act of God; the incarna-tion and virgin birth of our Lord and SaviourJesus Christ; His identification as the Son ofGod; His vicarious atonement for the sins ofmankind by the shedding of His blood onthe cross; the resurrection of His body fromthe tomb; His power to save men from sin;the new birth through the regeneration by theHoly Spirit; and the gift of eternal life by thegrace of God.Regarding the science department, the follow-

ing is a statement of their position:The Genesis account is not a detailed de-

scription of creation but is abundantly clearabout several things:

1. The account describes a series of actsoccuring in a short period of time and not aprocess occurring over millions or billions ofyears.

2. There were many original kinds of im-mediately created organisms as opposed to oneor a few mediately created or evolved ones.

3. Man in particular was immediately cre-ated and intended by God to have dominionover the other creatures.

As a result, it is felt that the Scriptures andevolution are irreconcilable and diametricallyopposed. The following examples seem to bean ample basis for this conclusion:

1. The Bible pictures man as having will-fully fallen from an original state of innocenceand therefore degenerate and in need of aSaviour, while evolution pictures man as get-ting better and better until he becomes somesort of a semi-god.

2. The Bible pictures Christ as the eternalCreator whereas evolution pictures Him sim-ply as a product of the process of evolution.

3. The Bible is believed to be the eternal,unchanging Word of God whereas, if evolutionis true, then the Scriptures themselves are buta detail of this cosmic process of evolution.

It is the concensus of the science facultythat evolution is man’s speculative and philo-sophical denial of God’s claim on his life. Ev-olutionists’ use of so-called scientific facts toprove evolution is an unwarranted extensionof scientific observation and methodology be-yond its reasonable limit into areas of interpre-tation and guessing.

Evolution is a position of faith just as surelyas is our position of Biblical creation. Becauseof his faith that “In the beginning, God didnot create . . .“ the evolutionist is placing him-self in the unenviable position of demonstrat-ing a universal negative, which, of course, isimpossible.

We agree with such evolutionists as Darwin,Spencer, Lyell, Huxley, Haeckel, and manyothers that there can be no reconciliation orharmonization between the Scriptural accountof creation and that of evolution in spite ofthe attempts of many modern thinkers to doso through some scheme of “theistic evolu-tion.” It should be rather apparent that thename is a misnomer and that the idea is ananomaly.

No individual is forced into a position ofevolution because of scientific facts, but ratherhe chooses this position because of his ownpresuppositions. We feel that the order ofnature in general and the structures of organ-isms in particular are evidence of an intelligent

47

(Continued from page 22)

5Hoyer, B. H., B. J McCarthy, and E T. Bolton, “AMolecular Approach in the Systematics of HigherOrganisms," Science, 144 (3621) 959-967, 1964

6Jukes, T. H., Molecules and Evolution. ColumbiaUniv. Press, New York. 285 p , 1966. See also R. V.Eck and M. O. Dayhoff, Atlas of Protein Sequence andStructure 1966. National Biochemical Research Foun-dation, Silver Spring, Maryland. 215 p., 1966.

7 Leone , C A, [ed . ] Taxonomic B io chemis t ry andSerology. Ronald Press, New York. 728 p., 1964.

8McLaren, A., and P. M. B. Walker, "Discriminating"Power of Rodent Deoxyribonucleic Acid on Incuba-tion in Agar." Nature, 211:486-490, 1966.

9Sibley, C. G., "Molecular Systematics: New Tech-niques Applied to Old Problems," L'Oiseau et R.F.O.,35:112-124, 1965.

10Richards, O. C., "Hybridization of Euglena gracilisChloroplast and Nuclear DNA," Proceedings NationalAcademy of Sciences of U. S. A., 57:156-163, 1967.

Campus of Bob Jones University

creative activity by God, rather than the resultof the action of random chance through vistasof time.We are very pleased with such a forthright

and clear-cut statement, and are happy to rec-ommend this fine university to our members.

Bob Jones University is in Greenville, SouthCarolina. The institution grants the doctorsdegree for advanced studies in various depart-ments, details of which may be obtained fromMr. Christ. Tuition is only $250.00 per yearfor 16 hours or less. Room and board per semes-ter is $409.50. There is also a matriculation fee

per semester of $40.00. Various laboratory, busi-ness machine use, and other fees range from$5.00 to $20.00 for organ practice. These arecertainly very modest fees. As may be seenfrom the University layout, which unfortunatelywe cannot show in color, the grounds are beauti-fully planned, and evidently set in a woodedarea.

It is a joy to know that such a fine Christianmotivated College and University exists and wehope in future issues to feature others so thata wide range of institutions in various parts ofthe country may be presented.

48

COMMENTS ON SCIENTIFIC NEWS AND VIEWSDR. HAROLD ARMSTRONG

Queens College, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

An article in Scientific Research, pp. 26-30,January 1967, discusses some of the problemsof the alleged fossil men in a surprisingly candidway, for something written by a person who(presumably) believes in evolution.

The occasion was the finding of a piece ofskull, near Budapest, which is supposed to beabout 500,000 years old, and yet quite likemodern man. This seems to fit in with neitherthe alleged line of descent from the Heidelbergman, nor the recently touted Homo habilus.

It is pointed out that the drawing of elaborateconclusions from measurements made on skulls,or fragments of skulls, must be viewed with somesuspicion. In fact, it is suggested that there is“. . . not the slightest shred of evidence to jus-tify the proposition that the skeleton is stable inan evolutionary sense . . . the bone-by-boneclassification . . . may . . . collapse finally of itsown weight.”

Incidentally, the fiasco of the Piltdown manis actually admitted—with blushes, one mightsay—and a somewhat similar incident involvinga skull found in Minnesota in 1936 by A. E.Jenks, which seems to have belonged to a SiouxIndian. In fact, it is suggested, it is not possibleto distinguish between races, (whatever wemean by “race”), by the measurement of bones.

The article concludes by suggesting a poly-phyletic (many tribes) origin of man, i.e., bythe interbreeding of various ape-like creatures.It is admitted that chimpanzees, gorillas, etc.,do not interbreed. Nor is there any evidencewhatsoever for such an origin among humans asthey exist today.

Nevertheless, the article concludes by sayingthat such an origin ". . . seems entirely possible

. . .“ Truly, hope springs eternal!

Interesting Animal “Controls”In Scientific Research, pp. 30-34, January 1967,

is reported some of the proceedings of the secondconference on genetics and behaviour at Rocke-feller University, November, 1966. Much of thereport on progress reads like the chapter onsnakes in Ireland: “there is no progress to re-port.”

Some information given by V. C. Wynne-Edwards might interest readers. He describeda number of cases in which animals regulate theirbreeding and living habits in order to keeptheir numbers within suitable limits. This hap-pens with many animals; a particularly strikingexample was that of the elephants in Africa,

which are limiting their numbers to fit thesmaller territory now available to them. Thus,it was pointed out, “. . . most animals may notsubmit to the classical Darwinian checks onpopulation . . .“

Somewhat akin to this is the example of thewolves on the islands of the Hebrides, who neverkill off more than one sixth of the population ofdeer. Again, beavers in Scotland restrict them-selves to cutting down about one tree in seventhousand (per day, evidently), which allows acycle of about twenty years for new trees togrow.

It would seem, in the light of these and otherexamples, that Darwinian “competition and sur-vival of the fittest” so over-simplifies a verycomplicated and delicate matter, that it canhardly be more than a caricature of the truth.

Virus or Bacterium?It is reported on p. 15 of Scientific Research for

January 1967 that Eleanor Alexander-Jackson,at a recent meeting of the American Associationfor the Advancement of Science at Washington,D. C., told of finding that the Rous virus, whichcauses fowl cancers, is actually a transient formof a bacterium. The virus, in a suitable culture,transforms into a Gram-variable, acid-fast or-ganism, probably of the bacterial order Actino-mycetales.

Does this mean that a virus stands in some-what the same relation to a bacterium that anegg does to a bird? If so, perhaps we shall hearthe last of the suggestion that life originatedsomehow with a virus; unless, indeed, peoplewant to maintain that the egg really did comebefore the chicken.

Why Suitable Conditions Anywhere?A. J. Cohen, in a paper presented at the meet-

ing of the American Astronomical Society atIthaca, 24-28 July, 1966, and of which an ab-stract appeared in The Astronomical Journal,Vol. 71, p. 849, November 1966, suggests,

The atmosphere, seasonal colour changes, and‘dust storms’ on the Martian surface maybe allexplained by various molecules, compounds,and complexes of permutations among iron,carbon, and oxygen . . . this model . . . wouldpreclude even the most rudimentary life onMars.The evidence seems more and more to indicate

that life is restricted to the Earth, as far as wecan find out. We should probably not make

49

too much of an issue of it, for Scripture is notvery much concerned with the point; yet, weChristians can consider that this is as we shouldhave expected.

We are told how God created living beingson the Earth, and how He created the heavenlybodies “. . . to give light upon the earth . . .“,but nothing is said to suggest that the heavenlybodies were created to be inhabited. In fact,little is said about them. Maybe this would in-dicate that the present extreme interest in themis unhealthy, and that we ought to consider to-gether Psalm 115:16, and Deuteronomy 29:29.

It is worth noticing how well this shows thatthe Earth was created as a place with specialfeatures “to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 45:18). Inthe past, the uniformitarian answer has beenthat “life arose where the conditions were suit-able.” But now we must rejoin that the wonderis not that there is life where there are suitableconditions, but that there are any suitable con-ditions.

There is not another body in the Solar Systemthat has the proper conditions of temperature,composition, water, atmosphere, day and night,gravity, and so on, to be a suitable home forliving beings. As far as we know, there is noneanywhere.

Surely it is too much to believe that this com-bination of favorable conditions arose bychance; can we not see that this is God’s work,and that it is “very good.” (Genesis 1:31)?

B. W. Hapke and T. Gold, in a paper presentedat the meeting of the American AstronomicalSociety, at Ithaca, 24-28 July, 1966, and of whichan abstract is given in The Astronomical Journal,Vol. 71, p. 857, November 1966, present evidenceto show that the surface of the Moon is coveredwith fine dust at least several meters thick. Theevidence is both from radar, and from the recentsurveys by rocket.

It is interesting to consider that this mightbe something like the state of the primitiveEarth, which, it has been suggested, may havebeen covered with soil to a very great depth.(See The Deluge Story in Stone, p 5; and T h eGenesis Flood, p. 100) While the Moon wasapparently never intended to support livingbeings, yet it may well have been created some-what like the Earth, and the Moon, as far as weknow, never had a Flood.

On Flashing of FirefliesAn article, “Biology of Synchronous Flashing

of Fireflies,” by J. Buck and E. Buck, in Nature,Vol. 211, pp. 562 et seq., 6 August 1966, may beof interest.

This is what is discussed. In certain parts ofsoutheast Asia, fireflies gather in trees along theriver, and flash in unison, usually at about twoflashes per second. The flash in unison extendsnot only to whole trees, but to whole rows oftrees.

Assuming that this is a “behaviour pattern,representing the product of countless milleniaof evolution,” the authors try to relate it to thegathering of the fireflies for mating. However,the same objections can be raised against thisassumptions as can be brought against the “evo-lution” of bees’ ability to make and store honey,or skunks’ ability to produce a bad smell: theability had to be nearly perfect before it wouldbe of any use at all, and could not help survivalin its very early stages.

Further, the reason for the unison is not madeclear. It is suggested that it makes the flashingmore noticeable, but this is questionable; theanalogy of a flashing neon sign may not hold.The flashing of the neon sign makes it stand outamid the steady lights, but in the jungle thisis surely not the problem.

The authors also suggest that coincidence ofthe flashes increases the brightness of the tree.However, if there is any integration of bright-ness in the eye at all, this suggestion must bereceived with some caution.

What can a creationist say about these gather-ings, and also of other animals for which it seemsjust as difficult to see a purpose? We know thatGod ordained them for reasons known to Him.Mating may be one purpose in some cases, butwe know that God often works out several pur-poses together. Is it possible, (I suggest this inall seriousness), that this, and other activitiesof animals by communities, is a form of worship?

The notion of animals, and other creatures too,praising the Lord is certainly a scriptural one.It is found in the Psalms, e.g., 148:10; 145:10;96:12, 69:34; and in Revelation 5:13. We mayworship by emitting sound in unison; why couldinsects not do so by emitting light?

There is no reason why mating might not becombined with this purpose. We may not doso—we should have Baal-peor all over again-(Numbers 25:3) but perhaps they may.

Whatever may be the value of my suggestion,let us at least consider that animals–even in-sects—are not just reproducing machines. Theyhave their own purpose in God’s plan, and surelythis includes praising Him in an appropriate way,since for His pleasure they are and were created.(Revelation 4:11). May I remind the readeralso of the story of Le Jongleur de Notre Dame?

50

The notion of animals–and all creation–prais-ing God is expressed most eloquently in TheSong of the Three Children. It is interesting alsoto read Socrates and the Animals by E l e n aQuarelli, translated from the Italian by K.Speight, published by Hodder and Stoughton,London, 1960, especially around p. 118.

Specific Doubts About DNAAn article in Scientific Research, pp. 33 et seq.,

October 1966, describes some work by B. Com-moner, of the Department of Botany, Washing-ton University, from which he concludes that“DNA is neither a self-sufficient genetic codenor the ‘master chemical’ of the cell.”

Evidence includes the fact that enzymeswhich synthesize DNA can sometimes operatein the absence of a starting DNA molecule.Moreover, the total amounts of DNA in variousorganisms seem to have little relation to the

complexity of organism. And DNA molecules donot, in fact, reproduce themselves in the testtube. In conclusion, Commoner maintains thatself-duplication is a property (would “activity”not be a better word than “property”?) of thewhole intact cell.

While some talk of evolution is brought intothe article, yet it would seem that the new theory,by making life depend on a more complicatedthing, a cell instead of a molecule, would makethe changing of one kind of creature into an-other seem even less likely than it did before.We creationists might well watch here for fur-ther developments.

Also, in view of all this complexity, we our-selves might stop talking about the “mechanismof heredity,” and encourage others to do likewise.Maybe there is no mechanism, in any meaningfulsense of the word, for maybe the process is notmechanical.

Our Society of research scientists representing various fields of successful scientific accom-plishment is committed to full belief in the Biblical record of creation and early history, and thusto a concept of dynamic special creation (as opposed to evolution), both of the universe and theearth with its complexity of living forms.

We propose to re-evaluate science from this viewpoint. Beginning in 1964, we are publish-ing an annual yearbook of articles by various members of the Society and thereafter a quarterlyreview of scientific literature. Our eventual goal is the realignment of science based on theisticcreation concepts and the publication of textbooks for high school and college use.

1. The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its asser-tions are historically and scientifically true in all the original autographs. To the studentof nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation ofsimple historical truths.

2. All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of Godduring the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have oc-curred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original createdkinds.

3. The great Flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, wasan historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

4. We are an organization of Christian men of science who accept Jesus Christ as our Lordand Saviour. The account of the special creation of Adam and Eve as one man and womanand their subsequent fall into sin is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a Saviourfor all mankind. Therefore, salvation can come only through accepting Jesus Christ asour Saviour.

Dues ore $5.00 (Foreign, $6.00 U. S.) per year and may be sent to Wilbert H. Rusch, Sr., Treasurer, 2717 Cranbrook Road, AnnArbor, Michigan 48104 Voting membership is limited to scientists having at Ieast a Masters degree in a natural science.Sustaining non-voting membership is open to those who subscribe to the above statement of belief at $5.00 (Foreign, $6.00U.S. ) per year and includes subscription to Annual and Quarterlies. All others interested in receiving copies of these publi-cations may do so at the rate of the subscription price for all issues for one year: $8.00 (Foreign, $9.00 U.S.).

The Board of Directors includes the following:Thomas G. Barnes, D.Sc.; Physicist, Professor of Physics, Texas Western college and Consultant to Globe Exploration

Company, 2115 N. Kansas Street, El Paso, Texas

Clifford L. Burdick, M.S.; Geologist (consultant), 206 North Jacobus Avenue, Tucson, ArizonaBolton Davidheiser, Ph.D.; Geneticist, Biola College, La Mirada, CaliforniaDouglas Dean, Ph.D.; Biologist, Pepperdine College, 8035 South Vermont Avenue, Los Angeles 44, CaliforniaDuane T. Gish, Ph.D.; Biochemist, Upjohn Company, Kalamazoo, MichiganJohn J. Grebe, D.Sc.; Nuclear Physicist, 1505 West Andrews Drive, Midland, MichiganGeorge Howe, Ph.D.; Botanist, Westmont College, Santa Barbara, CaliforniaJohn W. Klotz, Ph.D.; Geneticist, Concordia Senior College, Fort Wayne, IndianaRichard G. Korthals, M.S.; Physics, Astronautics, Concordia Junior College, Ann Arbor, MichiganW. E. Lammerts, Ph.D.; Geneticist, Germain Seed Company, Livermore, California — EditorKarl W. Linsenmann, M.D.; 312 East Main Street, Midland, MichiganFrank L. Marsh, PhD.; Biologist, Andrews University, Berrien Springs, MichiganJohn N. Moore, EdD.; Science Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MichiganHenry M. Morris, Ph.D.; Hydraulics and Hydrology, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Virginia — ChairmanWilbert H. Rusch, Sr., M.S.; Biology, Geology, Concordia Junior College, Ann Arbor, MichiganHarold Slusher, M.S.; Geophysicist, Asst. Professor of Geophysics and Director, Kidd Memorial Seismological Observa-

tory, Texas Western College, El Paso, Texas

William J. Tinkle, Ph.D.; Geneticist, Anderson College, 112 South St., Eaton, Indiana (retired) — SecretaryPaul A. Zimmerman, Ph.D.; Chemist, President, Concordia Junior College, Ann Arbor, Michigan

Membership price $5.00 (Foreign, $6.00 U.S.)

Subscription price $8.00 (Foreign, $9.00 U.S.)