Cystic Fibrosis? Blame Eve

Carl Zimmer
Apr 2
10 min read

August 7, 2006

Last night, as my family settled into a three-hour drive home, I began scanning the AM radio dial. The tuner stopped at on a well-produced segment in which the announcer was talking about recent evolution of pigmentation genes and lactose-digestion genes in humans. This is a surprise, I thought, and I settled in for a listen. It took about twenty seconds for me to realize that this was the work of creationists. I spent the next fifteen minutes listening to the piece with jaw aslack, making sure I didn’t get so distracted I missed my exit. There is something so absorbing about the elaborate rhetorical gymnastics that creationists engage in order to square their views with new scientific evidence.

This morning I did a little research online and discovered that what I had heard was part of a weekly radio program from the Institute for Creation Research. It claims that all of the new research on recent evolution in humans does not actually serve as evidence of evolution, but rather of man’s recent creation and fall. They dismiss the examples of recent evolution in various ways. They are just minor changes, for starters, not the sort that produce “fish-to-philosopher” evolution, as the announcer put it. They just tweak the human form. Or these mutations consist of losses, rather than gains, through mutation. Humans have lost olfactory receptor genes, for example.

The radio show then explains the real origin of all these patterns in our genome. The Institute for Creation Research was founded to promote Young Earth Creationism–the claim that the Earth is only a few thousand years old. The announcer explained that the minor variations in the human genome originated at the time of the flood, or at the creation of man at the earliest. Mankind was created with a perfect genome, we are told, and once we turned away from God through sin, our genome has been degrading ever since. All mutations that have accumulated since the fall of man have led to the loss of genes and to disease.

I have to say that the “Genomic Degradation as Original Sin” line was new to me. But in order to make this case, the radio show engages in the three classic creationist errors.

Error #1: Get the science wrong.

In order to portray recent mutations as nothing but loss and suffering, ICR must distort the facts. Take their discussion of mutations that provide protection for malaria but can also cause sickle-cell anemia. An ICR “scientist” tells us that all this mutation does let people die of sickle-cell anemia at age 15 instead of dying of malaria at age 10.

Become a subscriber and support our award-winning editorial features, videos, photography, and more—for as little as $2/mo.

GET STARTED

Earth to ICR: if what you say is true, then why do so many people have these mutations? Why didn’t they all die before they could pass that awful gene down to children? Because people only get sickle-cell anemia when they inherit two copies of this gene. One copy gives protection to malaria. On balance, natural selection thus favors the gene in regions with high rates of malaria.

The radio piece also makes a big deal about the digestion of lactose, a sugar in milk. It describes some populations as producing lactase, the enzyme for digesting lactose, and others as not producing it. Thus, this is just another case of a mutation destroying “genetic information” rather than creating it.

Second transmission from Earth to ICR: if what you say is true, then babies in those populations that cannot digest lactose should all die. After all, they cannot digest the lactose in the milk they get from their mothers. Here’s the real story: all mammals produce lactase as babies, in order to break down lactose in milk. Then, after weaning, the mammal’s cells stop reading the lactase gene. Since adult mammals don’t drink milk, making an enzyme to break down lactose is a waste of energy. The timing of this switch is under genetic control, and mutations can delay it until later in life. In human populations where cattle-herding became important, mutations that allowed humans to continue making lactase as adults were favored by natural selection. So nothing was lost. In fact, dare I say it, these human populations gained an adaptation that their ancestors lacked.

Error #2: Skip over inconvenient facts.

The ICR molecular biologists and science professor from Liberty University throw out lots of details, which may give the impression that they’re telling you everything there is to know about the evidence of recent evolution. But they skip over major things that would knock out the basis for their claims. For example, they claim that all the genetic changes that scientists have identified have nothing to do with the major changes that would have arisen on the way from ape-like ancestors to humans–such as an increase in cranial capacity. They conveniently skip over the genes that have been identified as having experienced natural selection in our ancestors that play a role in language, brain size, and brain development.

Error #3: Contradict yourself.

You can only conclude from this radio piece that the folks at ICR accept the evidence that humans have recently acquired mutations. But in many cases, scientists can only determine recent changes in humans by comparing our genomes to our relatives–chimpanzees, for example, and mice. By studying their genomes, scientists discover what our ancestral genome was like, and can then pinpoint the changes that arose in our genome after our ancestors split off from other species. If the ICR accepts these examples of recent human genetic change, then they must accept our common ancestry with chimpanzees and mice.

I am not a theologian, and so I won’t try to dive too deeply into the religious implications of thinking of our genomes as the result of original sin. But I do wonder how one makes that sort of idea work. The ICR radio show claims we lost our olfactory receptor genes since the flood. We have 388 working olfactory receptor genes and 414 broken ones (called pseudogenes). Mice, on the other hand, have 1037 working receptor genes and 354 psuedogenes. Many of their working genes have counterparts among our pseudogenes, which is some of the main evidence that our ancestors lost many genes involved in smell. So does that mean that mice enjoy an Edenic perfection that we have lost?

Anyway, let you own mind roam free: here’s the show in mp3 and real audio. And if you are hungry for more, here’s the radio show archive. It’s a fact-checker’s paradise.

Original Sin Genomics

By loom on August 31, 2006.

Before I moved the Loom to this address earlier this year, I got a fair amount of comments on my blogs about evolution from creationists. (See this entry, for example.) They fell off after the move, but now they're back in fine form. Today we are joined by Kevin Anderson, editor-in-chief of the Creation Research Society Quarterly.

Here's a little background: last week I wrote here about stumbling across a radio show put out by the Institute of Creation Research. It claimed that recent research on the human genome supports Young Earth creationism. Dr. Anderson spoke on the program about how sickle-cell anemia and lactose tolerance, and other genetic changes in human populations have nothing to do with evolution but are just the result of original sin.

Dr. Anderson's outfit is not shy about how life began. Here I quote from their "statement of belief":

The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths.
All basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of God during the Creation Week described in Genesis. Whatever biological changes have occurred since Creation Week have accomplished only changes within the original created kinds.
The great flood described in Genesis, commonly referred to as the Noachian Flood, was an historic event worldwide in its extent and effect.

Are we clear?

The radio show I caught was perfectly consonant with this belief. In my post, I pointed out some of the many errors and misleading statements in the show, including some made by Dr. Anderson. Well, today he has left a comment on the blog that's a doozy.

Check it out, and check out my response in the comment thread. I'll be curious to see where this goes...

Update: 8/1 9:50 am: I appreciate the comments that are already coming in--as always, interesting stuff. Rather than splitting comments between two posts and dispersing the conversation, could people leave all their comments on the original post? Thanks.

More like this

Cystic Fibrosis? Blame Eve

Haven't you tired of this yet, Pennsylvania?

A reader sent along anan article from the Lancaster Sunday News, announcing a lecture on 17 May by John Morris, an infamously silly Young Earth Creationist. It's a little peculiar; it's written by Helen Colwell Adams, bylined as a staff writer for the paper, but it is completely credulous — she…

Reading Genesis

As part of my research for my book on evolution and creationism, I have been reading a lot of books and articles about how to read the Bible. From this reading I have learned a great deal, but I also find certain things a bit puzzling. For example, consider the book Reading the Bible Again for the…

The Mosquito and the Bottle

Natural selection is not natural perfection. Time and again, biologists have discovered traits that are both beneficial and harmful. Perhaps the most famous example is the devastating disorder known as sickle-cell anemia. To get sickle-cell anemia, you have to inherit two faulty copies of a gene…

I'm impressed that you could even understand what he was saying. "You assume that all beneficial mutations serve evolution? This is only true if you refuse to acknowledge that evolution is actually common descent, and not just merely any change."

Looks like someone used a random creationist argument generator and ended up with word salad they don't understand.

By tsmith on 31 Aug 2006 #permalink

Dr. Anderson spoke on the program about how sickle-cell anemia and lactose tolerance, and other genetic changes in human populations have nothing to do with evolution but are just the result of original sin.

I have a question for him, I haven't received any responses from skeptics elaborating as of yet, and it would be a first for a Creationist, if they'd answer. Just how "physical" was the so-called immortality of Genesis? No death before the fall?

Did man and all the creatures in the Garden partake in the tree of life?

I heard from one skeptic, how to the recent day some still search for the Fountain of Youth, and a lot of ancient cultures believed the human could take a bite of magic fruit and live forever.

Revelation:2:7: He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God.

Revelation:22:2: In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations.

Revelation:22:14: Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city.(KJV)

This tree of life sounds very much like a physical immortality for imperfect bodies. I mean, if Adam were built immortal and perfect to begin with, what need would he have of any "tree of life" to sustain his body?

According to the scripture, after the curses were handed out to snake, woman and man, Adam still had the potential for eternal life. It was only a matter of getting his hands on the magic fruit.

Gn:3:22: And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: (KJV)

So, man (and animal) were cut off from the lifeline of immortality when driven from Eden? For all we know, Adam may have been lactose intolerant.

By sharon (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

What I can't get past is the fact that I just don't understand the psychology behind creating a creationist organization in the first place. If there is an omnipotent creator God, surely he doesn't need our help in defending his own existence. If a) the goal is to "win over sinners and unbelievers," and b) there really is a shaky foundation under evolutionary biology, wouldn't a more effective tactic be to quietly work within the academic and peer review system without revealing your agenda, and let the facts of the universe (and, if you're right, God) speak for themselves?

By Matt Bull (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

opriginal sin, that's where Adam eats the apple and we are all sinners because of it. WOW

many ancient cultures punished the children of the initiator of crime. They just carried this into their bible. "He's a sinner, kill his children"

Sorry, a god that punishes all for what Adam did is not one that we should admire. If we started punishing the children of criminals we would be rediculed. Then they say "god is love" WOW

By richCares (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

Carl, could you ask Dr. Anderson what "ei;(i umlauted and underlined)" is? I can't find it on Dictionary.com, can't in fact even type it, and even the Germans don't umlaut "i". Thanks.

By lee (not verified) on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

Lee--I think some html/ascii gobbledy-gook emerged as I moved his text from my email to the blog. I've tried to fix it.

By loom on 01 Sep 2006 #permalink

For what it's worth, i with a diaresis (or umlaut, though technically it isn't that in those languages) is used in several languages (Welsh and Ukrainian, off the top of my head), but I don't think this is anything more than a mark-up error.

By The Ridger (not verified) on 02 Sep 2006 #permalink

This statement is interesting, "The Bible is the written Word of God, and because it is inspired throughout, all its assertions are historically and scientifically true in the original autographs. To the student of nature this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths."

Given that Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 give contradictory chronologies of the creation, it is hard to see how they can both be inerrant.

There are multiple inconsistancies which you can consult for yourselves, but just to mention one. In G 1, god created the animals and then man(adam). In G 2, god created man(adam) and then created the animals.

By bernarda (not verified) on 02 Sep 2006 #permalink

original sin is when two replicators fonicated

By bill mccarron (not verified) on 11 Sep 2006 #permalink