Book Reviews

Clarity and confusion

to overcome various antibiotics, such A review of as chloroquine, and humans have The Edge of : mutated to generate some measure of The Search for the resistance to (e.g., sickle cell, Limits of Darwinism thalassemia). by Michael J. Behe Behe shows that all the cases of Free Press, New York, adaptation, in both Plasmodium and NY, 2007 humans, are due to breaking things, not creating new complex features. For example, chloroquine resistance Don Batten in Plasmodium is due to a fault in a transport protein that moves the poison his new book by , a into the organism’s vacuole. Behe Tfollow-up to Darwin’s Black Box likens the struggle to trench warfare, (DBB), has created somewhat of a where the defending forces will destroy storm amongst the faithful defenders their own bridge, or blow up a road, of Darwin such as , to impede the enemy’s advance. It is and Kenneth Miller. They not really an arms race, because in an arms race the opposing forces invent came out with all guns blazing to try overcoming other anti-malarials has to destroy the credibility of this book, new weapons, but the natural processes (‘evolution’) operating in Plasmodium only needed one for each presumably hoping that their dismissive one. This seems like a reasonable vitriol would cause potential readers to and humans have not invented new weapons. explanation for the relative resilience skip reading it. Dawkins claimed that of chloroquine over time compared to Behe had completely departed from the Chloroquine resistance—a other anti-malarials. message of DBB, but Behe rightly says relatively rare occurrence From this observation, Behe (p. 7), ‘my conclusions are ultimately Plasmodium, as a microbe, achieves calculates, using the estimates of the same’. Plasmodium population numbers and As far as the goes, Behe’s huge populations and chloroquine has been around many years. This means generations provided by evolutionists, book is well worth reading; Behe the probability of resistance requiring argues very cogently that random that the parasite has had plenty of opportunity to undergo significant two to occur where one is not mutations and are 20 evolution, as the larger the total number helpful. One in 10 parasites will have capable of very little (hence ‘the edge of organisms, the more mutations that chloroquine resistance (p .59). A very of evolution’) and cannot explain the 12 can be experimented with by natural sick person will have 10 parasites major features of living organisms. selection. and if a billion people per year were Natural processes can explain variety at 21 However, resistance to chloroquine infected, this gives 10 parasites, the level of and perhaps genus has only arisen relatively infrequently; which means we would expect at least and family and maybe order, but major it lasted a decade before resistance one person per year to be infected by class features and above are beyond appeared. This contrasts with a parasite that has acquired resistance the reach of natural processes. These resistance to other anti-malarials, to chloroquine. These calculations are features demand . which has shown up within weeks of consistent with the observed resilience But that’s where Behe’s reasoning falls their first use. Behe points out that of chloroquine. apart: he becomes quite incoherent as resistance to chloroquine involves 4–8 to what he means by intelligent design. Slow-coach humans amino acids in a membrane transport But more on that later. protein (a ‘pump’). It seems to have Compared to Plasmodium, humans are boring when it comes to the Clarity arisen on four separate occasions. Two particular amino acid changes evolutionary possibilities, because Behe’s major argument as to where seem to be common (residues 76 and of our relatively small population the edge of evolution lies (what random 220), so two mutations seem to be and long generation times. Behe mutations can and cannot achieve), needed in the one gene. One mutation calculates, assuming the evolutionary revolves mainly around the malaria apparently does not generate any timescale (which he does not question), parasite. He analyses the interaction resistance to chloroquine, or must be the maximum total number of humans between humans and Plasmodium compensated by a second mutation to since the supposed split from chimps falciparum. Plasmodium has mutated overcome deleterious effects, whereas as 1012 individuals. Therefore it would

28 JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(1) 2008 Book Reviews

take a billion years to have a chance with no secondary structure and have modifications’ (Darwin) because it has of getting a double mutation like that no interaction with other proteins. All some 200 different protein components. needed for chloroquine resistance in they have to do is interact with water Not only the components have to be Plasmodium. In other words, anything molecules to inhibit crystallization. explained, many of which are peculiar more difficult than this would never They are of different lengths, from to the cilium, but also their precision happen in a human-like organism. different genes, and can be regarded as assembly. Exciting discoveries since Sickle cell trait, which requires a the accumulation of ‘genetic debris’ DBB make the problem even worse for specific nucleotide change (mutation), that happens to be adaptive. He Darwinian naturalism, particularly the has arisen de novo only a few times in likens it to various pieces of wood, realisation that intra-flagellar transport human history. However, thalassemia, bark and leaves creating a dam in a (IFT) occurs (transport of proteins which merely requires the breaking of creek: it can be done incrementally, within the flagellum itself) and is a hemoglobin gene, for which there and almost anything will do to add necessary for cilium functionality. IFT are many ways to achieve this, has to the dam. This is the sort of thing entails the active movement of protein arisen hundreds of times. Again these that random changes can achieve. components, by linear motors called frequencies are consistent with the As Behe says, ‘Rare examples such kinesins ‘walking’ along microtubules, probabilities of mutations in a human- as the Antarctic fish set Darwinian for repair of the cilium tip, so that like population. ‘Evolution’ (mutations pulses racing. But to more sceptical each cilium is continuously rebuilt. and natural selection) is quite able to observers, they underscore the limits Mutations that break IFT result in non- do this sort of thing. of random mutation rather than its viability because cilia are necessary for If one in 1020 malaria parasites will potential.’ Behe quotes one group of such things as embryo development have a double mutation, the chances anti-freeze researchers: ‘A number of and eye and kidney function. Behe of getting two such double mutations dissimilar proteins have adapted to the says, ‘IFT exponentially increases the would be one in 1040. But this exceeds task of binding ice. This is atypical of difficulty of explaining the irreducibly the total number of cells that have protein evolution’ (p. 82). complex cilium’ (p. 94). existed on earth in the billions of years He also revisits the bacterial Revisiting irreducible complexity that life is supposed to have existed. flagellum, which is comprised of about In other words, evolution could never Behe revisits the cilium (pp. 84–96), three dozen proteins (figure 1). Much achieve this. This is basically ‘the discussed in Darwin’s Black Box as an more has also been discovered about edge of evolution’ the limit to what example of irreducible complexity—a this, and it is also much more complex mutations and natural selection can biological feature that could not be than previously envisaged (pp. 97ff). achieve. built by ‘numerous successive slight Behe gives a sketch of the marvellous Powerhouse yeast Behe also looks at the history of yeast, again assuming the usual evolutionary scenario that yeast underwent a genome duplication hundreds of millions of years ago. He observes that no novel complexities have been added since. With the population numbers and short generation times, mutations have had plenty of opportunity to be creative, but … nothing. He also looks at pyrimethamine resistance in Plasmodium, DDT resistance in mosquitoes and warfarin resistance in rats. In every case things are broken by mutations to create resistance. Behe spends some time looking at anti-freeze in a fish (pp. 77–81). He acknowledges that the ‘evolutionary’ (mutations + selection) scenario painted www.wikipedia.com Illustration by Mariana Villarreal, is feasible. However, he points out that Figure 1. The construction of the various parts of a flagellum involves an intricate control the protein fragments that comprise system that achieves such precise, ‘just-in-time’ organisation, before any functionality is the antifreeze are quite non-specific, possible, such that no engineer would attribute it to random changes (i.e. evolution).

JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(1) 2008 29 Book Reviews

control systems that are involved in so they are expressed independently. protein-binding sites, but in all the achieving a ‘just-in-time’ organisation This expression must be controlled cases surveyed, perhaps one protein- of construction of the various parts. precisely, otherwise various types of protein binding site has arisen by It is precision engineering that no anemia called thalassemia result. Also, mutation: the sickle cell condition in engineer would attribute to random there is an essential chaperone protein humans, which is quite non-specific changes (i.e. evolution). called AHSP (alpha hemoglobin and actually destroys the normal There is just no way that a series of stabilizing protein) which, as the name structure of the hemoglobin tetrad successive slight modifications could implies, stabilizes the α-chain and also and causes disease not evolutionary create such intricate machinery because brings it to the β-chain. Otherwise the advancement. So Behe is being dozens of components and steps are α-chain would precipitate and damage generous in granting one example. necessary before any functionality the red blood cells.2 Considering the number of organisms would be possible; there is no series of But many functional proteins need that have ever lived, it is clear that intermediate states that work to some six or more chains to bind in a specific evolution could have created only two extent and can therefore be favoured manner. Behe concludes, justifiably, I at most of the ~10,000 binding sites. by natural selection. Such ‘coherent’ believe, that, And definitely no complexes of three (a word used often by Behe) features ‘Generating a single new cellular or more proteins (of which there are of living things are well ‘past the edge protein-protein binding site is many). of evolution’, says Behe (p. 102). of the same order of difficulty The numbers of Plasmodium In contrast, where successive or worse than the development and HIV in the last 50 years would mutations are all beneficial, evolution of chloroquine resistance to the probably greatly exceed the total can result in beneficial change. For malarial parasite. … the great number of mammals since their example, the addition of the C-harlem majority of proteins in the cell work supposed evolutionary origin (several mutation (β-hemoglobin residue 73) to in complexes of six or more. Far hundred million years ago), yet little the sickle mutation (residue 6) restores beyond that edge [of evolution]’ has been achieved by evolution. This the decreased viability due to the sickle (p. 135). suggests that mammals could have mutation. Based on a mutation rate of The fact that no novel protein- invented little in their time frame. 30 per three billion nucleotides of the protein interactions have developed in Behe: ‘Our experience with HIV gives per baby, with one of the war between malaria and humans— good reason to think that Darwinism those being in protein-coding genes, in humans or the parasite—reinforces Behe calculates that 1 in 100 million the point. doesn’t do much—even with billions (1 in 108) babies will be born with a What about something like HIV of years and all the cells in that world specific mutation, so this is achievable that ‘mutates at the evolutionary at its disposal’ (p. 155). sequentially, but if both are needed speed limit’, 10,000 times the rate Ruses answered together to be useful, the odds become of Plasmodium? Although it has 1 in 10 million billion (1016), which produced some 1020 copies in the Behe deals with attempts to give would never happen, even if a human past decades, its basic genetics have naturalism a leg up, such as Stuart population of one million had been changed very little. ‘Each and every Kauffman’s ‘complexity theory’ where around for a billion of years. This is possible single point mutation occurs things are supposed to have an innate beyond the edge of evolution.1 between 10,000 and 100,000 times per tendency to self-organize (p. 159). But This is the problem of coherence: day in a HIV-infected individual.’ But the very same evidence adduced to show evolution can have no goal, but can this has produced ‘no new gizmos or that random mutations cannot create only select what is helpful for survival basic machinery’ (p. 138). ‘No gene the grand organizational complexity of now. duplication has occurred leading to living organisms also shows that there is no tendency to self-organize. There Upping the ante new function. None of the fancy tricks that routinely figure in Darwinian is no innate ability of living things to Life is much more than a couple speculations has apparently been much create new specified complexity (such of mutations in a given gene (which use to HIV’ (p. 139). as multiple protein binding sites). of course has to pre-exist for the The biochemical changes in both The same goes for James Shapiro’s mutations to occur in it). Behe points Plasmodium and HIV to overcome idea that cells have the ability to out that life depends on many protein drugs have all been trivial, such as a create new functions due to a built-in complexes where multiple proteins bind point mutation slightly changing the toolbox that allows for self genetic together in specific ways. Hemoglobin shape of an enzyme. engineering. Of course this would needs four proteins (two α and two β Behe summarizes the statistical mean that the basic, original living chains) to assemble correctly. The problems for the evolutionary scenario thing that had the toolbox would be α- and β-globin chains are encoded in an important Table 7.1 (p. 143). A even more fantastically complex than on genes on different chromosomes, typical cell might have some 10,000 it is known to be. But the evidence

30 JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(1) 2008 Book Reviews

that Behe presents argues against any One kernel, for example, specifies types, this strongly suggests that the such ability also. the steps in constructing one of the origin of these classes is beyond the The discovery that certain common layers in a sea urchin.3 Behe points edge of evolution. genes (e.g. Hox genes) control the out that different phyla differ in their Shades of baraminology basic body plans of a wide range of body plans, so must have different creatures excited evolutionists with kernels, which could not evolve. So So Michael Behe comes to the grand imagined possibilities for evolution. the origin of phyla is beyond the edge conclusion to his survey: ‘Somewhere For example, very similar genes of evolution. between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge control where eyes form in both He then goes on to point out that of Darwinian evolution’ (p. 201). A insects and vertebrates, although the specific cells such as the B cells of eye designs are quite different. Such diagram illustrates this (p. 218), which our immune system are controlled he reproduces on the page facing the discoveries launched the ‘Evo Devo’ by a GRN at least as complex as the movement. Evolutionists thought that title page of the book (figure 2). one elucidated in sea urchins. Since a little tinkering (mutations) with the Interestingly, the creationist study different vertebrate classes differ in Hox genes could generate new body of baraminology (defining the limits of the numbers of different cell types that plans and even explain the origin of the original created kinds, or baramins, major categories of life, for example. are produced—e.g. amphibians about of Genesis 1) has arrived at conclusions However, the initial hype has not been 150, birds 200 and mammals 250 cell consistent with Behe’s proposition, fulfilled. Mutations in these genes do not generate anything fundamentally new; they just rearrange what already exists (putting eyes or antennae where they would not normally be, for example). So this has been a dead end in terms of evolution. And as Behe points out, the discovery of control systems makes the problem for evolution even worse—not only does evolution have to explain the origin of the protein-coding genes, but their control systems as well. In an important aside, Behe points out that Darwinism did not predict molecular homology (quoting François Jacob, Ernst Mayr and Sean Carroll), nor anticipate the discoveries relating to common developmental controls (quoting Sean Carroll, Kirschner and Gerhart, and Walter Gehring). Behe says, ‘Time and again, by intentionally reasoning about animal life on Darwinian principles, the best minds in science have been misled.’ Evolution is bad for science. The problem of the evolution of control systems is underlined with the discovery of gene regulatory networks (GRNs) that specify the sequence of steps needed to build an animal’s body components. These are logic maps like those used in designing computers (p. 196) that involved dozens of protein- switches and proteins. Failure of one Figure 2. Behe comes to the conclusion that the edge of Darwinian evolution for a vertibrate lies somewhere between the level of species and class. That is, evolution cannot causes failure of the whole—they are explain the categories above this level. Interestingly, creationist biologist Frank Marsh irreducibly complex also. Modules proposed in 1976 that the created kinds (baramins) were often at the level of genus or of these GRNs are called ‘kernels’. family, although sometimes at the level of order. (Figure 10.1, p. 218).

JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(1) 2008 31 Book Reviews

using a different approach based on And then it gets really confusing. beyond recognition. But it hasn’t—the hybridization criteria, where possible, Behe says that science has revealed close similarity is claimed as evidence combined with morphology, etc.4 In a fine tuning ‘well beyond laws, past of common ancestry! So, using the fact, in 1976 creationist biologist Frank details, into the very fabric of life’ (p. evolutionists’ own assumptions, it is not Marsh proposed that the created kinds 230). ‘But the assumption that design ‘useless’ and the evolutionary argument (baramins) were often at the level of unavoidably requires “interference” disintegrates and the similarity becomes genus or family, although sometimes rests mostly on a lack of imagination. evidence for common design, not at the level of order.5 There’s no reason that the extended common ancestry.7 fine-tuning view I am presenting here Dr Behe even weighs in on the Confusion necessarily requires active meddling issue of natural evil and its implications with any more than the fine- for his —was ‘the What does Behe propose instead tuning of theistic evolution does. One designer of life a dope, a demon, or of random mutations to explain the can think the universe is finely tuned a deity’? Biblical creationists have origin and diversity of life? What does to any degree and still conceive that consistently pointed to this gaping hole he mean by intelligent design? That’s “the universe originated by a single in the vaguely theistic worldview of the where things get rather muddy. creative act” and underwent “its natural ID movement that excludes revelation Behe looks at the fine-tuning of the development by laws implanted in it.” (the Bible) from consideration, and universal constants and laws of physics One simply has to envision that the thus the Fall.8 Behe doesn’t really try that govern the properties of our universe. agent who caused the universe was able to answer the question, merely saying He rightly dismisses the ‘multiverse’ to specify from the start not only laws that science can’t answer such questions idea as an explanation for the ‘just-right’ but much more.’ (p. 239). conditions for the existence of life on But just what mysterious thing did our planet in our universe. It does not the designer specify ‘from the start’? The critics rescue Darwinism as an inadequate Behe does not say. He says, ‘Those The heavyweights of the Darwinian explanation for biological complexity who worry about “interference” should (p. 222). faithful have weighed in on criticising relax. The purposeful design of life to Behe’s book. Most of their vitriol He accepts the collision hypothesis any degree is easily compatible with the for the origin of the moon (pp. 212–3) amounts to little more than abusive ad idea that, after its initiation, the universe hominem attacks, but to the occasional and since it is necessary for life on earth unfolded exclusively by the intended (tides, etc.) suggests that the collision scientific criticism, Behe has responded playing out of natural laws’ (p. 232). 9 was somehow ‘purposely arranged’ (p. quite ably. It does not appear that This sounds like theistic evolution or Richard Dawkins even read the book 215). He overlooks the many problems Kauffman’s innate self-organization, 6 before going into print—he cited the with this idea. both of which Behe himself effectively He also states that the origin of life variety in domestic breeds of dogs as countered. The data that he so elegantly proving the sufficiency of mutations was ‘deliberately, purposely arranged’ presented show that there is no tendency (p. 216) and that intelligence is needed to generate the diversity of life (Behe of living things to create new specified clearly regards such variation as within to explain the origin of biological complexity, by random or non-random the ability of random mutations and features involving two or more protein processes—by any natural process. selection, as do biblical creationists).10 binding sites. Behe also seems confused about Overall, this book is a valuable Interestingly, Behe initially refers to , which he repeatedly contribution to the debate over the the designer impersonally (‘it’, ‘which’) asserts that he accepts. He accepts the sufficiency of random mutations to but later slides into references using the evolutionists’ argument that shared account for the origin and diversity personal pronoun (‘who’). supposed DNA errors demonstrate of life on earth, but the author seems Behe criticizes theistic evolutionists common descent (that humans and confused as to what he means by who think that this is compatible chimps had a common ancestor, for intelligent design. with Darwinism, because he says if example). But the argument depends an external agent set up the universe on the assumption that so-called References with properties that would ensure a ‘pseudogenes’ are functionless. Behe 1. The mutation rate is actually much higher, particular outcome, then it was not due himself inadvertently provides the 100–300 per person, but that is insufficient to random variation and it is therefore evidence against the idea, in discussing to rescue the evolutionary problem Behe not Darwinism. Also, the physical laws the prevalence of mutations (p. 68). If outlines. Furthermore, this higher rate describe how matter behaves in general means that evolution has another serious we assume the evolutionary scenario problem: that natural selection is powerless terms and do not of themselves contain of millions years since our split from to remove deleterious mutations from the the specificity to create life, for example. a common ancestor with chimps, if human population, so that we are in mutational In other words there is no ordained the ‘pseudogene’ were functionless, meltdown. This puts severe limits on the age of the human population. See Sanford, J.C., outcome from just the operation of the unconstrained by natural selection, Genetic entropy and the mystery of the genome, physical laws. then it should have mutated almost Elim Publishers, New York, 2005.

32 JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(1) 2008 Book Reviews

2. Kihm, A. et al., An abundant erythroid protein that stabilizes free-haemoglobin, Nature 417(6890):758–763, 13 June 2002; comment Designed to inhabit by L. Luzzatto and R. Notaro, Haemoglobin’s Chaperone, same issue, pp. 703–705. the earth 3. See The Davidson Lab: Endomesoderm Gene Network; , 13 Dec. 2007. A review of 4. Wood, T., A baraminology tutorial with The Plausibility of Life: examples from the grasses (Poaceae), TJ Resolving Darwin’s (now Journal of Creation) 16(1):15–25, Dilemma 2002; . and John C. Gerhart 5. Marsh, F.L., Variation and Fixity in Nature, Yale University Press, Pacific Press, CA, 1976. New Haven, CT, 2005 6. See Sarfati, J., The moon: the light that rules the night, Creation 20(4):36–39, 1998; ; Henry, J., The moon’s recession and age, J. Creation Jean K. Lightner 20(2):65–70, 2006; . irschner is professor and chair 7. See also, Woodmorappe, J., Potentially Kof the Department of Systems decisive evidence against pseudogene ‘shared at Harvard Medical School. mistakes’, TJ (now Journal of Creation) 18(3): 63–69, 2004; . of Molecular and Cell Biology at the 8. Wieland, C., CMI’s views on the Intelligent Design University of California. Systems Movement, 2002; . studies relationships and interactions share many of the same components between various components of 9. See Behe’s blog on Amazon.com, accompanying although they may be used differently information about the book. biological systems. Research in this in different organisms. It is as if they field and molecular and cell biology 10. Sarfati, J., Misotheist’s misology: Dawkins are oblivious to the fact that human attacks Behe but digs himself into logical are very important to advancing a engineers commonly reuse good potholes, 2007; . God created and still sustains despite as necessary, in distinct creations. the Curse.1 This book attempts to Apparently they have predetermined provide a naturalistic explanation for that a Divine Creator would not be the origin of novelty, but many of likely to use such techniques. Yet this the observationally based details are shallow argument is the strongest they valuable to creationists. have for maintaining their evolutionary The authors begin with the standard evolutionary assumptions that there assumptions. were no witnesses to the origin of Sources of variation life, there is no creator, and that all of life shares a common ancestor. The authors state that Darwin’s In the introduction the arguments of theory of evolution has three pillars: William Paley are reviewed. The the theory of natural selection, the authors propose that living things are theory of heredity, and the theory of fundamentally different from the watch. generating variation so natural selection They compare biological clocks to man has something to work on. The authors made clocks (pp. 5–7). They point out imply the first two are evidence for that time keeping devices invented in evolution and fail to recognize their different cultures or eras often have importance in the creation model. different components (e.g. the Chinese The source of variation is admitted as water clock, the pendulum grandfather being a major weakness of evolution, clock, the watch driven by an uncoiling and the authors attempt to correct this spring and the quartz watch) although deficiency in their book. They do this they have the same basic purpose. They by advancing the theory of facilitated then point out that biological clocks variation.

JOURNAL OF CREATION 22(1) 2008 33