I know I haven't talked about my life in a while, and I'm sorry. But here is something I wrote for extra credit for biology about a movie we watched. WARNING, it's kind of controversial, and I might sound like I don't know what I'm talking about, so don't judge me. But it's what I think is correct.
Tracing the origins of life in a scientific way has been difficult for biologists for a very long time. It wasn’t until Carl Woese came up with the idea of phylogenetic classification that scientists were able to relate living things to each other in a more scientific way than simply how things appear. This is indeed an ingenious way to view how closely related all of life actually is. There are certain elements within the hypotheses that have formed as a result of this method that I can see reason in, but as a Christian it is hard to incorporate evolution as a part of my worldview.
Carl Woese’s method of phylogenetic classification involves looking at and comparing strands of the 16SrRNA gene, which is found in all living things. The video that we watched stated that of all of the DNA in living organisms, the amount that differentiates all life is only about 3% of that DNA. This is an incredibly small amount, obviously, and leads to implications about the similarity of all life. The 16SrRNA gene is within that 3% that differs, and so with that Woese was able to create a new “Tree of Life”. The new Tree of Life that was created makes sense to me biologically.
The only part of Woese’s Tree of Life that makes me uncomfortable is the idea of a common ancestor. His Tree of Life also implies evolution. It has been suggested that God may have used evolution as a mechanism for creation, but the Bible in Genesis says that God created the animals “…each according to its kind” (Gen 1:24). This is not to say that I don’t think natural selection occurs, because it does. But from my understanding, natural selection combined with genetic mutations as a mechanism for evolution is not a correct idea. I may be wrong, but it is my understanding that most genetic mutations are not beneficial, and they are also often not passed along to offspring. Because of these things, I think that a common ancestor for all of life, and therefore, all of evolution, is and will always be only a theory and not a fact.
In the movie we watched, Karl Stetter’s work also revolves around finding the origin of life. He looks in extreme environments such as Yellowstone National Park to find organisms in the domain Archaea. In the 60s, these organisms were classified in the same group as other prokaryotes. However, using Woese’s new classification, these microorganisms were found to be very different from other bacteria. They prefer extreme conditions, similar to primordial earth. This is the basis of Stetter’s research, and this makes sense to me. However, it is also possible that these Archaea were simply created by God and placed in these extreme environments for His purposes. Perhaps their metabolism and contribution to maintaining balance in nature is what their sole purpose is. In any case, I think that if Karl Stetter is looking for the closest thing to a common ancestor, he will be disappointed because I don’t think there exists such a thing.
The final thing that I did not agree with in the video we watched was the mention that the earth IS 4 and a half billion years old. They did not suggest that the earth MIGHT be that old based on certain hypotheses made by geologists. Once again, the genealogies in the Bible along with the story of creation infer a several-thousand-year-old earth. The idea that evolution occurred over billions of years nicely suits the idea of a common ancestor and natural selection, but evolution over the course of several thousand years is simply not noticeable. So, if the earth is only several-thousand years old, a common ancestor could not have had enough time to diversify into all of life on earth.
In conclusion, because of my Christian faith, I refute many of the ideas we talked about in class, but I do accept them as scientific and worth study.
