Faster than a speeding bullet! More powerful than a locomotive! Able to leap tall buildings in a single bound! . . . It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s . . . Mighty Moss Piglet!

The Super Ts

Actually, it’s just a tardigrade, and they aren’t really fast. Their name actually means “slow-stepper.” And they’re not really superheroes, but maybe they should be. They can withstand extreme environments including temperature ranges from near absolute zero to 300°F (well over the boiling point for water), high levels of radiation (hundreds of times the human lethal dose), the vacuum of space, pressures up to six times greater than the deepest ocean trench, and extremely low levels of life’s elixir—water! These creatures transform via cryptobiosis, a physiological state where metabolic processes seemingly cease. This poorly understood transformation allows cryptobiotic tardigrades to withstand extreme desiccation and extreme cold (even for decades) before being reanimated! It’s not exactly resurrection from the dead, but it’s a good case for elevating this microscopic organism to superhero-like status.

Due to their appearance and habitats, tardigrades have acquired the nicknames of water bears and moss piglets. First discovered in 1773, these micro-animals are rather cosmopolitan, showing up in a variety of earth habitats. Their translucent, segmented bodies facilitate microscopic visualization of simple neurological and muscular structures. In the past 18 months these eight-legged, microscopic wonders of survival have been drawn into a debate about the extent of horizontal gene transfer in the evolution of its highly unique phyla of animals, Tardigrada, containing more than 1,000 different species.

In 2015, researchers reported a tardigrade, Hypsibius dujardini, draft genome indicating signs of extensive horizontal gene transfer.¹ The report indicated that 17.5 percent of the 38,145 predicted genes in the 212.3 megabase (Mb) genome of the tardigrade depended upon transfer of foreign genes, primarily (>90 percent) of bacterial origin. However, subsequent sequencing by a second research group indicated <0.5 percent of genes in the 135 Mb tardigrade genome were acquired through functional horizontal gene transfer (~0.2 percent bacterial genes and another 0.2 percent foreign genes from nonmetazoan eukaryotes).² That’s a huge difference! These two studies highlight some very significant challenges that science faces in the modern genomic era and the era of an extended evolutionary synthesis.

Extended Evolutionary Synthesis 

The extended evolutionary synthesis (EES), addresses, among other things, an obvious inadequacy of gradual, unguided mutations under natural selection (neo-Darwinism) as a sufficient mechanistic explanation for the complexity and diversity of life on Earth. Therefore, adherents to an EES share common critiques of Darwinian and neo-Darwinian evolutionary claims to those raised by progressive creationists and other critics of Darwinian evolution.

EES appeals to various other naturalistic explanations and molecular mechanisms for the acquisition and accrual of large amounts of genetic information and material over relatively short transition times. These mechanisms include genome duplication, transposition/translocation, horizontal (or lateral) gene transfer, and endosymbiosis.³ The exact contributions and combinations of these mechanisms in accounting for a naturalistic explanation of life’s complexity, diversity, and history is unknown and has been referred to as the muddy middle layer of mechanism. EES and many theistic evolutionists believe the muddy middle layer will be clarified over time through progressive scientific studies and discoveries.

As scientists, we dare not fail in acknowledging that mechanisms like horizontal gene transfer (HGT), genome duplication (whole or partial), and transposition contribute significantly to biological functions and adaptive mechanisms. As I’ve said elsewhere, I actually think molecular mechanisms such as these point to brilliant, insightful engineering that will assure the survival and thriving of species in response to ever-changing, challenging environments. (See “Demystifying Evolution” and “Do Devils Evolve” for related articles.)

However, I believe that a naturalistic appeal to these varieties of mechanisms as those responsible for the evolutionary history and complexity of life will make it ever more difficult to draw meaningful scientific conclusions practical for application from the data. The first publication of the tardigrade draft genome highlights this hazard.

Misinterpreting the Data—HGT, Convergence, or Contamination?

Horizontal, or lateral, gene transfer refers to the real or presumed transfer of genetic material from one organism to another. In single-cell organisms HGT occurs via human intervention in the laboratory or in nature by the uptake of genetic material from the environment. Both cases where this occurs are known as transfection. HGT also occurs through vector-mediated transfers by viruses (transduction), or by direct transfer from one organism to another (conjugation). Successful transfer of genetic information affects all subsequent progeny in unicellular organisms. However, in multicellular organisms HGT is typically vector-mediated (via viruses) or, presumably, through direct environmental uptake of bacteria or single-cell organisms (parasites or symbionts). In multicellular organisms, HGT only affects subsequent generations and progeny if the transfer occurs in the germ line.

In the first publication of the tardigrade draft genome, researchers were quick to interpret data within the genomic sequences as that of bacterial and non-metazoan eukaryotic foreign DNA acquired by HGT. This interpretation of the data fits nicely into a neo-Darwinian or EES understanding of universal common descent where more complex organisms must co-opt genetic material necessary for survival from other simpler organisms, since accruing point mutations over time is not sufficient or efficient enough to ensure survival. Appealing to HGT to account for tardigrade genomic sequences allowed the researchers to further speculate that the tardigrades’ abilities to survive extreme environments were achieved by co-opting bacterial systems that allow bacterial extremophiles to thrive under similarly harsh conditions. The researchers’ commitment and desire to show an evolutionary relevance led them to some poor and hasty conclusions. This is so often true in vast troves of the scientific literature today, since such speculation is much simpler than the hard work of designing well-controlled functional experiments that prove rather than just infer significant function.

In the second genome publication, the researchers were much more meticulous in their work and sequencing, and seemingly much more committed to getting at the truth than advancing a particular interpretive paradigm. Carefully evaluating sequence scaffolds and controlling assembly parameters, they found that only ~0.5 percent, not 17.5 percent, of the genome may be associated with HGT from bacteria and non-metazoan eukaryotes. Of course the 0.5 percent may be of functional significance, acquired through HGT, and relevant to understanding the tardigrade organism, but all of that is yet to be analyzed and far from being proven.

When are evolutionary stories telling us nothing substantive? Forcing a universal common descent model onto the interpretation of the data in order to account for the presence of specific genomic components in various organisms is bad and hasty science. We have no idea if the ~0.5 percent of the genome is truly indicative of HGT, convergence, or even residual contamination in the DNA sequences. Only good research will address these questions.

Joining the Questioners

Does the evolutionary paradigm facilitate scientific advancement and contribute to a reliable, growing foundation of knowledge? Or is a blind assumption of universal common ancestry clouding the waters by promoting inference-only scientific conclusions? If we want to gain true knowledge and understanding that can be harnessed for practical applications and advancements, researchers must do the hard work—looking for genes and regulatory mechanisms and proving associated functions—rather than just inferring function or lack of function based on evolutionary rhetoric. Inference is not evidence—it is just inference.

Inference may be right and it may be wrong. And hasty, inference-laden assumptions, received with uncritical open arms, embracing any evolutionary conclusion will continue to swamp the scientific literature with premature claims that cloud access to true scientific knowledge. A commitment to progressive creationism actually forces the scientist to do the hard work of linking form and function for each organism of interest before publishing. Progressive creationism is a paradigm that will push us to scientific conclusions of greater integrity and reliability.

Tardigrade Superheroes

Perhaps these tardigrade superheroes will help deliver us from speculative science driven by ever more creative evolutionary narratives. The first two reports of tardigrade’s genomic analyses have certainly highlighted a major hazard in scientific literature—showing that researchers too quickly assume too much about draft genome sequences. When others build on these assumptions, the literature becomes a fog of self-supporting assertions often built on very little data and mountains of speculation.

Certain critiques raised by the EES toward neo-Darwinian evolution are extremely helpful in opening up scientific inquiry. But perhaps these critiques do not take us far enough from freeing scientific inquiry from the endless inferences built on naturalistic assumptions and commitments to universal common ancestry. Unswerving commitment to a universal common ancestry paradigm plus the mechanisms of EES may lead to greater mayhem and confusion in the absence of real, functional, and mechanistic data. Dogmatic evolutionary theory may one day destroy scientific access to reality.

We should always ask ourselves, what’s best for getting at the underlying truth? As we discover more and more scientifically, I am convinced it will point more and more to the complexity of God’s brilliant, insightful designs. God’s revelation in nature will become more and more apparent as he desires for more people to see him, seek him, and find him in redemptive reconciliation.

Endnotes

1. Thomas Boothby et al., “Evidence for Extensive Horizontal Gene Transfer from the Draft Genome of a Tardigrade,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 112 (December 2015): 15976–81, doi:10.1073/pnas.1510461112.
2. Georgios Koutsovoulos et al., “No Evidence for Extensive Horizontal Gene Transfer in the Genome of the Tardigrade Hypsibius dujardini,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 113 (May 2016): 5053–8, doi:10.1073/pnas.1600338113.
3. Perry Marshall, Evolution 2.0: Breaking the Deadlock between Darwin and Design (Dallas: BenBella Books, 2015).

Subjects: Animals

Featured image: Artistic impression of two pulsars orbiting around a common center of mass 
Credit: Michael Kramer, Jodrell Bank Observatory, University of Manchester

The most rigorous and compelling proof that the universe was created by an Agent that transcends space and time comes from the theory of general relativity. The best confirmation that general relativity is a true theory comes from measurements on the binary pulsar B1913+16. Thanks to a new study, that best confirmation has now become even better.

Astronomers have been studying the binary pulsar PSR B1913+16 for nearly four decades. In a recent issue of the Astrophysical Journal, astronomers Joel Weisberg and Yuping Huang published their analysis of 9,257 pulse times-of-arrival measurements taken over 35 years on PSR B1913+16.¹

PSR B1913+16 is a pair of neutron stars where one of the neutron stars is a pulsar. The two neutron stars orbit one other with a period of 7.75 hours and an orbital separation of just 3 light seconds (a little more than twice the separation of the moon from Earth or about 2/3 the diameter of the sun). The pulsar rotates on its axis about 17 times per second. Thus, it sends out a strong pulse of radiation every 59 milliseconds.

The theory of general relativity predicts that neutron stars orbiting close to one another will radiate gravitational waves. This radiation will cause the neutron stars to experience a decay in their orbit—that is, the neutron stars will orbit closer and closer to one another as gravitational energy is radiated away by the gravitational waves.

The easiest and most accurate way to measure the orbital decay is to determine changes in the timing of periastron of the orbit. Periastron refers to the position in the orbit at which two stars orbiting one another are closest to one another. The orientation of periastron in PSR B1913+16’s orbit has been observed to change by 4.2° per year. Figure 1 shows the observed change in the timing of periastron with date from 1975–2003 compared to what the theory of general relativity would predict.²

Figure 1: Orbital Decay of the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16 (1975–2003)
The data points show the observed change in the epoch of periastron with date. The parabolic curve shows the change in epoch predicted by the theory of general relativity.

Figure 2 shows the observed change in the timing of periastron with date from 1975–2014.³ The newer measurements show an even more spectacular agreement with the prediction arising from the theory of general relativity.

Figure 2: Orbital Decay of the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16 (1975–2014)
Data points show the observed change in the epoch of periastron with date. The error bars on the post-1980 data points are much too small to show. Credit: Weisberg and Huang, Astrophysical Journal 

Until the publication of Weisberg and Huang’s paper, the best comparison of the observed orbital period decrease of PSR B1913+16 compared to the prediction of general relativity was 0.997±0.002.⁴ Weisberg and Huang’s work improves that comparison to 0.9983±0.0016.⁵ Their results remove any reasonable doubt for “the existence and strength of gravitational radiation as predicted by general relativity.“⁶

In their paper, Weisberg and Huang also announce two never-before-performed tests of general relativity. They successfully measured, for the first time in this system, the “two parameters characterizing the Shapiro gravitational propagation delay.” (The Shapiro gravitational propagation delay is the slowing down of the passage of light predicted by general relativity as that light experiences a change in gravitational potential caused by the gravitational field of a massive body.) Their measured values were consistent with general relativity’s predictions.⁷ They also successfully measured, for the first time in any system, the shape correction to the elliptical orbit of PSR B1913+16. The shape correction they measured was consistent with the prediction arising from general relativity.⁸

Even before the publication of Weisberg and Huang’s paper, general relativity ranked as the most exhaustively tested and best-proven principle in physics. With the addition of Weisberg and Huang’s research findings, general relativity is now even more exhaustively tested and better proven. Thanks to Weisberg and Huang’s additional tests of general relativity’s veracity, the conclusions of the space-time theorems are now even more solid than they were before.

The space-time theorems rest on just two significant (nontrivial) assumptions: (1) the universe contains bodies that possess mass, and (2) the equations of general relativity reliably describe the movements of massive bodies. Readers of this blog, by themselves, are adequate evidence that assumption #1 is correct. Thanks to Weisberg and Huang’s research findings and the research findings of others, no reasonable basis now exists for doubting assumption #2.

The most potent of the space-time theorems, the one proven by Arvind Borde, Alexander Vilenkin, and Alan Guth, states that all cosmological models are subject to an initial space-time singularity, regardless of assumptions about homogeneity, isotropy (or lack thereof), or energy conditions, including cosmological models that invoke an early hyper-inflation event.⁹ This beginning of space and time implies that an Agent operating from beyond space and time must have caused the universe to exist.

About a year after the publication of the theorem, Alexander Vilenkin wrote in a book, “With the proof now in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past eternal universe. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.”¹⁰ That problem is a causal Agent who transcends space and time. Such a causal Agent matches the description of the God of the Bible.

Endnotes

1. Joel Weisberg and Yuping Huang, “Relativistic Measurements from Timing the Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16,” Astrophysical Journal 829 (September 2016): id. 55, doi:10.3847/0004-637X/829/1/55.
2. Joel Weisberg, David Nice, and Joseph Taylor, “Timing Measurements of the Relativistic Binary Pulsar PSR B1913+16,” Astrophysical Journal 722 (September 2010): 1030–34, doi:10.1088/0004-637X/722/2/1030.
3. Weisberg and Huang, “Relativistic Measurements,” 9.
4. Weisberg, Nice, and Taylor, “Timing Measurements,” 1034.
5. Weisberg and Huang, “Relativistic Measurements,” 1.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Ibid.
9. Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin, “Inflationary Spacetimes Are Incomplete in Past Directions,” Physical Review Letters 90 (April 2003): id. 151301, doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.90.151301.
10. Alexander Vilenkin, Many Worlds in One: The Search for Other Universes (New York: Hill & Wang, 2007), 176.

Subjects: Cosmology, Inflation, Relativity, Origin of the Universe

The Creator of the universe desires an intimate relationship with each of us.

It is one of the more outrageous claims of the Christian faith. And no passage of Scripture expresses the intimacy between Creator and creature more than Psalm 139:13.

A fresh perspective on this passage of Scripture comes from recent work by researchers from Cambridge University in the UK. This study reveals the central role the placenta plays in properly allocating nutritional resources between mother and child, illustrating the intimate care God provided for us through the elegant design of embryological development.¹

This research also has important pro-life implications, providing a response to the claim that the fetus is nothing more than a harmful mass of tissue.

Nutritional Demands of the Fetus and the Mother

For a pregnancy to be successful, nutrients must be carefully distributed between the fetus and the mother. Yet sharing nutrients runs contrary to the biological tendencies of the mother and the unborn baby. The fetus has a genetic drive for growth and craves all the nutrients it can get. So does the mother. But for the fetus to grow and develop, the mother must provide it with the nutrients it needs, setting up a potential tug of war between the mother and the developing baby in her womb.

Ironically, if the fetus hoards nutrients excessively, the hoarding can backfire. If the mother doesn’t have access to sufficient nutrients during the pregnancy, it can negatively impact lactation and the mother’s long-term health, which, in turn, compromises her ability to care for the child after birth.

As it turns out, the placenta plays a critical role in managing this trade-off. Instead of being passive tissue that absorbs available nutrients from the mother, the placenta dynamically distributes nutrients between mother and fetus, optimally ensuring the health of both mother and developing baby. To do this, the placenta receives metabolic signals from both the mother and fetus and responds to this input by regulating the nutrient amounts made available to the fetus.

One of the key genes involved in nutrient regulation is called p110α. This gene codes for a protein that integrates the metabolic signals from mother and fetus. The Cambridge University researchers wanted to understand the role that the maternal and fetal versions of this gene play in parsing the nutrient supply between mother and developing baby.

What Happens When p110α Is Defective in Mother and Child?

What happens when p110α is defective in mother and child? To answer this question, the research team used mice as a model system, preparing genetic mutants, so that either the mother or fetus had a defective version of the p110α gene. If the mother had a healthy p110α gene, but the fetus a defective version, the placenta developed abnormally. But in spite of its defective appearance, the placenta compensated so that it would still take up the nutrients the fetus needed to develop. However, if the mother had a defective version of the p110α gene, the placenta (which formed abnormally even though the fetus had a healthy version of the p110α gene) transported fewer nutrients to the fetus.

In adult tissue, the p110α gene plays a role in regulating growth in relationship to nutrient supply and mediates the metabolic effects of insulin and insulin-like growth factors. That means that a defective version of this gene models conditions in which the mother’s health is compromised due to disease, poor nutrition, stress, or other factors.

On the basis of this study, it appears that when the mother is healthy, the placenta readily transports nutrients to the fetus and dynamically adjusts, even if it forms abnormally. On the other hand, if the mother’s health is compromised, the placenta restricts nutrient flow to the fetus to ensure the mother’s long-term health, with the prospects that the fetus can still grow and develop.

This insight has important biomedical implications. In the developing world, one in five pregnancy complications involve the placenta. In the developed world, this number is one in eight. The researchers hope that this insight will help them understand the etiologies behind problem pregnancies and also help them identify biomarkers that will alert physicians to problems earlier in the pregnancy.

This work also has important apologetics implications, as well.

Indeed, We Are Fearfully and Wonderfully Made

This work highlights the elegance of embryological development. It seems an exquisite rationale—a biological logic, if you will—undergirds every aspect of development. The optimal way the placenta partitions resources between mother and fetus, carefully managing trade-offs, evinces the handiwork of the Creator, and reveals the Creator’s intimate care for the fetus.

The devastating effects caused by mutations to the p110α gene raises questions about the capacity of evolutionary mechanisms to explain the origin of the reproductive system in placental mammals. Because the placenta is not a passive conduit for nutrients between mother and fetus, the challenges of explaining its genesis via unguided evolutionary process become insurmountable. If the placenta lacks the capability to effectively allocate resources between the mother and fetus—or even if this process operates in a suboptimal manner—the fetus may not survive, or the mother may not be healthy enough to nurse and rear the child once it’s born. In other words, it becomes difficult to imagine how the placenta’s role in embryological development could evolve from an imperfect system to an optimal system under the influence of natural selection because of the critical, dynamic role the placenta plays in embryological development. If this role isn’t properly executed, the child isn’t likely to make it to reproductive age.

Is the Fetus Like a Tumor?

This work also has implications for the pro-life debate. I have often heard pro-choice advocates argue that abortion is not murder, because the fetus is like a tumor. But the work by the scientists from Cambridge University makes this view impossible. Because the placenta dynamically allocates resources between the mother and the fetus in a way that preserves the mother’s health, the fetus cannot be viewed as a tumor robbing the mother of nutrients. Instead, it looks as if the placenta’s function has been designed in such a way to ensure optimal health for both the mother and the fetus. This study also shows that if the mother’s health is in jeopardy, the placenta actually compromises the health of the fetus so that the mother’s health is not unduly harmed by the pregnancy.

Resources
“Curvaceous Anatomy of the Female Spine Reveals Ingenious Obstetric Design” by Virgil Robertson (article)
“What Are the Odds of You Being You?” by Matthew McClure (article)
“Morning Sickness May Protect Embryos from Toxins” with Fazale Rana (podcast)

Endnotes

1. Amanda Sferruzzi-Perri et al., “Maternal and Fetal Genomes Interplay through Phosphoinositol 3-Kinase (PI3K)-p110α Signaling to Modify Placental Resource Allocation,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 113 (October 2016): 11255–60, doi:10.1073/pnas.1602012113.

Subjects: Design, Intelligent Design, Optimization