Mormons and Evolution

It seems that, to many, one of the most offensive parts of evolutionary theory is that it does not contain–or actually disavowes–any sense of progress that makes humans the triumphant result. Of course this is because it clashes with religious beliefs that humans were the intended and crowning creation of God. Yet I think it is something to be grateful for, as I will explain in a moment.

Perhaps the primary reason for denying any sense of progress is that none is detectable without overlaying the data with unverifiable assumptions. When the fossil record is examined with its large parade of life-forms that have come and gone over enormous expanses of time, how can we say with any certainty (leaving religion aside) that we, or any other life-form, were the intended outcome? How do we know that we are not just precursors to other life-forms to come? Without appeals to religion such questions are unanswerable. In the popular literature some scientists debate whether something like us would inevitably turn up sooner or later. Such arguments are interesting but nothing more than intellectual gymnastics for now. (I’ve discussed before that these types of issues are a problem for any kind of historical study and for other branches of science. He specifically denied it was the case, but hypothetically speaking, if Pres. Hinckley said that hurricane Katrina was sent by God to destroy New Orleans, no objective evidence could be marshalled to discount that the destruction of New Orleans was just a chance–though not unlikely–event.)

In the late nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, the idea that evolution entailed some kind of progress did exist. I don’t think such views had any kind of cosmic destination in mind, but ideas put forth by Darwin mixed with those of Lamark served as a basis for a sense of human progress through evolution. These ideas were used to justify such ugly things as racism (including German superiority), downtrodding the poor, eugenics, and even war. This, in turn, fueled William Jennings Bryan’s opposition to evolution which culminated in the Scopes Monkey Trial. When the notion is adopted that human progress occurs by biologic means, it is an easy step to conclude that some groups of people should be perpetuated and others should not.

A sense of progress can also have consequences on the environment. Afterall, worrying about this or that endangered species can be viewed as an impediment to a kind of human manifest destiny. Using a sense of unfolding purpose in evolution, some may conclude that the inability of various life-forms to persist in the face of human expansion is “nature’s way.” I remember a conservative political commentator once ridiculing environmental advocates as being in conflict with evolutionary principles–as though extinction is part of evolution’s “divine” plan.

So I, for one, am glad that evolutionary theory has divested itself of any sense of unfolding progress. Aside from being unverifiable from a scientific standpoint, it is easily used to justify brutal treatment of other people as well as the rest of nature. The sciences describe the world; they do not tell us how the world ought to be.

Over at No Death Before the Fall, Gary has been posting on the views of Harold B. Lee and David O. McKay concerning pre-Adamites. I’ve been intending to do this post for a while, so I guess now is as good a time as any. The following material is taken from Chapter 11 of the recent biography, Lengthen Your Stride, by Edward Kimball. All of what follows comes from the final manuscript (as opposed to the draft version contained on the accompanying CD-ROM). Please note that I have taken material from two sections of the chapter and am presenting it in the order that makes sense for my purposes here.

–Begin Quotes–

In 1979 President Kimball met with the Presiding Bishopric…and Elder McConkie to discuss a proposal that on the Church’s sequicentennial the First Presidency publish an official statement on the creation and evolution. But after extended discussion, they decided in 1980 not to issue any such official statement. According to Elder Ezra Taft Benson’s grandson Stephen, Elder Benson had strong personal anti-evolution views but “acknowledged that ‘the Lord may not have revealed enough to create unanimity among the Brethren.’” Elder Benson reportedly said any statement would be “unwise” and serve only to “widen differences…” (pg. 96-97)

President Kimball was not a doctrinaire, and he felt a need to intervene in doctrinal matters only when he saw strong statements of personal opinion as being divisive. Elder McConkie’s talk at BYU on “The Seven Deadly Heresies” implied he had authority to define heresy…President Kimball responded to the uproar by calling Elder McConkie in to discuss the talk. As a consequence, Elder McConkie revised the talk for publication so as to clarify that he was stating personal views…But there was no corrective public criticism of the talk… (pg. 101)

These statements [such as Elder McConkie’s in the speech referenced above], without any public expression of a different view by other leaders, gave the mistaken impression that the Church had a position on the issue, despite the continuing hands-off position of the First Presidency and the Twelve. (pg. 97)

–End Quotes–

According to Edward Kimball, President Kimball said little about the issue in public and was noncommittal in family discussions, viewing it as a distracting issue. (pg. 97)

From time to time I run into the claim that the processes of evolution cannot add new information to the genome. It’s time to talk about why this is not the case.

First let’s get some things straight: DNA is not simply a code. Yes it codes for proteins, but it has physical/chemical properties of its own. Some proteins recognize and can bind to specific sequences of DNA–a fact that is routinely used in laboratories to manipulate DNA by cutting it in specific places. Proteins are composed of amino acids, which each have physical/chemical properties. It is these properities that give a protein its overall shape and function. So altering the sequence of DNA can change how proteins interact with it, or if the change is in a stretch that codes for a protein, it can change the sequence of amino acids which in turn can alter the properties of the protein.

Sometimes letters composing words and sentences are used to illustrate changes in DNA or amino acid sequence. It is a useful analogy but it does have limitations. Words have meaning because we assign the meaning to them whereas proteins act on other proteins and molecules as a result of physical and chemical properties. Their “meaning” is dependent on context.

There are several ways that new genes can be created.

1. Gene Duplication: There are a couple of ways that genes can be duplicated–for our purposes we’ll just say that copying errors or recombination can each lead to duplication of genes. With duplicate genes there are several potential outcomes. Two simple scenarios involve the duplicate copy either mutating into useless sequence, or mutating and taking on a different function–either way the original copy is able to carry out the original function. There are numerous families of genes in our genome–families of genes that are a result of gene duplication and modification. Examples include the globin genes (including myoglobin and hemoglobin) as well as Hox genes which control developmental processes.

2. Exon Shuffling: In eukaryotes (like us) many genes are broken up into units called exons, while the sequence between the exons are called introns. Introns are spliced out before translation into protein occurs. Through various mechanisms, an exon of one gene can be tacked on to (or into) another gene leading to a novel chimeric gene.

3. Mobile Elements: These can be thought of as stretches of selfish DNA that copy and paste themselves throughout the genome. If they land in the middle of a gene they can alter the way the sequence is spliced, thus altering the amino acid sequence of the protein. Alternatively, if they land near a gene they may alter how, when, or where the gene is turned on or off (see amylase below).

4. Lateral Gene Transfer: This is not as common in us, but genes can be moved from one organism to another (by a virus, for example).

5. Sequence Coding: Also less common, sometimes sequence in or adjacent to a gene can change such that the gene is extended by a number of amino acids.

6. Gene Fusion/Fission: Two genes can be fused into one, or one gene split into two.

In addition to the creation of new genes, the regulators of gene expression can be altered. For example, in a previous post I dealt with the amylase enzyme and how it came to be expressed in the mouth (in addition to the pancreas). In that case, a gene duplication occured followed by the insertion of “junk” DNA in front of one of the genes. That “junk” DNA acts like a switch and is responsible for the expression of amylase in the mouth. It is a case of an apparently accidental occurance that happens to be useful.

Thus we see that new information can be generated in the genome. Whether it has all happened strictly by natural processes is another question–and one that is probably ultimately unanswerable by scientific means. Nevertheless, we should not underestimate the creative processes that already exist within the genome.

---

Nature Reviews Genetics 4, 865-875 (2003); The Origin of New Genes: Glimpses from the Young and Old. (Unfortunately this article is not freely available.)For additional information you can search the books available here.