THE WORLD’S GREATEST CREATION SCIENTISTS (VON BRAUN)

Creation-Evolution Headlines ^ | 1/1/2000 | Creation-Evolution Headlines

[bondserv]

  Wernher von Braun     1912 - 1977 

“It’s not exactly rocket science, you know.”  The cliche implies that rocket science is the epitome of something that is difficult, obscure, and abstruse; something comprehensible only by the brainiest of the smart.  Names that qualify for the title “father of rocket science” include Tsiolkovsky, Goddard, and von Braun.  But Konstantin Tsiolkovsky was mostly a visionary and chalkboard theorist, and Robert Goddard only targeted the upper atmosphere for his projects; he was also secretive and suspicious of others to a fault.  Of the three, and any others that could be listed, Wernher von Braun has the prestige of actually taking mankind from the simple beginnings of rocketry all the way to the moon and the planets.  His name is almost synonymous with rocket science.  He is an icon of the space age.  As we will see, he should be remembered for much more than that.

Von Braun (pronounced fon BROWN – and roll the R) is important in this series because he was recent enough to be in the living memory of many, and we have a great deal of documentation, photographs and motion pictures of him.  Even young people (that is, anyone under 40) who did not live through the glory days of Apollo are all familiar with three of von Braun’s last great projects he took from vision to reality: the Space Shuttle, orbiting space stations and interplanetary travel.  Unquestionably, he had a great deal of help.  One does not do rocket science alone!  At the height of the Apollo program, some 600,000 employees were involved in tasks from machining parts to managing large flight operations centers.  Yet by wide consensus and by results achieved, Wernher von Braun was a giant among giants: highly regarded by his peers, respected by all who worked with him, a celebrity to the public, showered with honors, and unquestionably responsible for much of the success of the space program.  Few have ever personally taken a dream of epic proportions to reality.  The peaceful exploration of space!  It was the stuff of dreams — dreams by Kepler, Jules Verne, science fiction novels and countless childhood imaginations, yet today it is almost too commonplace.  Von Braun dreamed, but made it happen.  He was the right man with the right stuff at the right time.

What kind of person was he?  Many great scientists are quirkish or aloof in their personal lives, but we’re going to reveal a lesser-known side of von Braun, a spiritual side that kept him humble, grateful, unselfish, and strong.  We’ll see a remarkably well-rounded individual, a family man who loved swimming and travel and popularizing science for children; a man who loved life, had charisma and energy and dignity and integrity, handled huge projects yet kept a winning smile and a sense of humor even in the most stressful of project deadlines.  We’ll see a model of leadership that success-bound corporate heads would do well to emulate.  Maybe you didn’t know (incidentally) that he was also a Christian and creationist.  But first, a review of his record.

Link

[Junior]

He knew about that. He's no neophyte on these threads; like the rest of the creationists he suffers from tabula rosa syndrome.

[Doctor Stochastic]

... suffers from tabula rosa syndrome.

There's a skin cream for that. These guys have tabla rasa mostly.

[Professional Engineer]

PING

[Junior]

D'oh!

[bondserv]

The 'Creationists' simply astound me at how little they seem to understand the very world they live and interact with around them. It's as if they *still* think the world is 'composed' of four basic 'substances': Earth, fire, water and air.

Then again you could be wrong!

Vast Databases

At the moment of conception, a fertilized human egg is about the size of a pinhead.  Yet it contains information equivalent to about six billion "chemical letters."  This is enough information to fill 1000 books, 500 pages thick with print so small you would need a microscope to read it! 

If all the chemical "letters" in the human body were printed in books, it is estimated they would fill the Grand Canyon fifty times! ²

This vast amount of information is stored in our bodies' cells in DNA molecules and is coded by four bases-adenine, thymine, guanine and cytosine.  The key to the coding of DNA is in the grouping of these bases into sets that are further sequenced to form the 20 common amino acids. Together, these genetic codes form the physical foundation of all life.

We've all been exposed to the basic concepts of DNA and its double-helix structure in our high school biology classes.  Perhaps you remember being taught that cells divide through the "unzipping" and subsequent replication of the double helix.  In all likelihood, though, the incredible evidence of design in this process was not discussed.

A Complex Engineering Puzzle

Suppose you were asked to take two long strands of fisherman's monofilament line-125 miles long-then form it into a double-helix structure and neatly fold and pack this line so  it would fit into a basketball. 

Furthermore, you would need to ensure that the double helix could be unzipped and duplicated along the length of this line, and the duplicate copy removed, all without tangling the line.  Possible?
This is directly analogous to what happens in the billions of cells in your body every day.  Scale the basketball down to the size of a human cell and the line scales down to six feet of DNA. 

All this DNA must be packed so the regulator proteins that control making copies of the DNA have access to it. The DNA packing process is both complex and elegant and is so efficient that it achieves a reduction in length of DNA by a factor of 1 million. ³

When the cell needs to divide, the entire length of DNA must be split apart, duplicated, and repackaged for each daughter cell. No one knows exactly how cells solve this topological nightmare. But the solution clearly starts with the special spools on which the DNA is wound.

Each spool carries two "turns" of DNA, and the spools themselves are stacked together in groups of six or eight. The human cell uses about 25 million of them to keep its DNA under control. ⁴ (As shown in Figure 3 on the previous page, DNA is wound around histones to form nucleosomes.  These are organized into solenoids, which in turn compose chromatin loops.  Each element in this complex, yet highly organized arrangement is carefully designed to play a key role in the cell replication process.)

Cell Replication

The details of cell replication are too complex to be described in detail here.  A simplified outline is given below to illustrate the incredible process involved: ⁵

1. Replication involves the synthesis of an exact copy of the cell's DNA.
 
2. An initiator protein must locate the correct place in the strand to begin copying.

3. The initiator protein guides an "unzipper" protein (helicase) to separate the strand, forming a fork area.  This unwinding process involves speeds estimated at approximately 8000 rpm, all done without tangling the DNA strand!

4. The DNA duplex kinks back on itself as it unwinds.  To relieve the twisting pressure, an "untwister" enzyme (topo-isomerase) systematically cuts and repairs the coil.

5. Working only on flat, untwisted sections of the DNA, enzymes go to work copying the strand.  (Two complete DNA pairs are synthesized, each containing one old and one new strand.)

6. A stitcher repair protein (DNA ligases) connects nucleotides together into one continuous strand.

Read and Write

The process described above is only a small part of the story.  While the unwinding and rewinding of the DNA takes place, an equally sophisticated process of reading the DNA code and "writing" new strands occurs.  The process involves the production and use of messenger RNA.  Again, a simplified process description: ⁶

1. Messenger RNA is made from DNA by an enzyme (RNA polymerase).

2. A small section of DNA unzips, revealing the actual message (called the sense strand) and the template (the anti-sense strand).

3. A copy is made of the gene of interest only, producing a relatively short RNA segment.

4. The knots and kinks in the DNA provide crucial topological stop-and-go signals for the enzymes.

5. After messenger RNA is made, the DNA duplex is zipped back up.

Adding to the complexity and sophistication of design, the genetic code is read in blocks of three bases (out of the four possible bases mentioned earlier) that are non-overlapping. 

Moreover, the triplicate code used is "degenerate," meaning that multiple combinations can often code for the same amino acid-this provides a built-in error correction mechanism.  (One can't help but contrast the sophistication involved with the far simpler read/write processes used in modern computers.)

A Common Software House

All living things use DNA and RNA to build life from four simple bases.  The process described above is common to all creatures from simple bacteria all the way to humans. 

Evolutionists point to this as evidence for their theory-but the new discoveries of the complexity of the process, and the fact that bacterial ribosomes are so similar to those in humans, is strong evidence against evolution.  The complexities of cell replication must have been present at the beginning of life. 

A simple explanation for the similarities of the basic building blocks can be found if one realizes that all life originates from a single "software house."  He is awesome indeed!

Link

[PatrickHenry]

He knew about that. He's no neophyte on these threads; like the rest of the creationists he suffers from tabula rosa syndrome.

Back in the days of negotiating the "Agreement of the Willing," that kind of behavior was condemned as aggressive amnesia. Anyway, I didn't remember him, so like a good evolutionist, I politely provided some links. Am I casting my bread upon the waters, or pearls before swine?

By the way, you mean tabula rasa (blank slate, not rosy slate).

[bondserv]

Perhaps you remember being taught that cells divide through the "unzipping" and subsequent replication of the double helix. In all likelihood, though, the incredible evidence of design in this process was not discussed.

[PatrickHenry]

In all likelihood, though, the incredible evidence of design in this process was not discussed.

Had there been any such evidence, I'm sure it would have been discussed. But I remain open-minded. What evidence do you have to offer?

[bondserv]

DNA Translator Does the Twist  11/16/2002
A molecular protein machine responsible for translating DNA in a "primitive" cell does some pretty amazing gymnastics, scientists have discovered.  Writing an extended research paper in the Nov 15 issue of Science, two biochemists from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (Yim and Steitz) found that the RNA Polymerase (RNAP) of T7 bacteriophage is quite the contortionist.  Lacking the larger genome of eukaryotes, its DNA translation equipment has to get by with less, so it performs three large conformational changes on one end, and additional shifts on the other: "The transition from an initiation to an elongation complex is accompanied by a major refolding of the amino-terminal 300 residues. This results in loss of the promoter binding site, facilitating promoter clearance, and creates a tunnel that surrounds the RNA transcript after it peels off a seven-base pair heteroduplex."  This involves seven subunits rotating 140 degrees and shifting 30 angstroms, then one subunit stretching out over twice its initial length.  Then comes the grand finale:

Perhaps the most unprecedented conformational change involves residues 160 to 190, which not only extensively refold, but move about 70 Å from one side of the polymerase to the other. This region refolds from a short helix and an extended loop into a pair of antiparallel helices (H1 and H2/3). The newly formed compact structure, named subdomain H, forms part of the RNA-transcript exit tunnel and contacts the 5' end of the RNA transcript on one surface and the nontemplate DNA on the opposite surface.

The other end also undergoes shape-changes to create an exit tunnel for the RNA copy of the DNA.  This "massive structural reorganization" of the protein machine causes it to form a protective tunnel, positively charged on the interior, in which the delicate work of translation can occur accurately. The tunnel interior melts the DNA into two strands, shunts the non-coding strand safely to the side, brings the RNA copy elements in and binds them to the DNA template.  As the machine progresses down the track, it twists and bends the DNA against its natural inclination.  This then supplies the energy to open up the strands and create a "transcription bubble" where the RNA letters (nucleotides) are mated with the DNA code in the "active site".  The tunnel has just the right shape to allow the RNA elements to come in.
          RNAP first has to attach to the DNA at a specific starting point called a promoter; this is the "initiation" phase.  It appears that another protein called lysozyme regulates RNAP by binding to it, and preventing it from entering the "elongation phase" where all the gymnastics occur prior to the real translation work. In the initiation configuration, RNAP can produce only short chains (oligonucleotides) of RNA.  The authors puzzle over whether there is a reason for this:

One might ask why the abortive synthesis of short oligonucleotides exists and why the enzyme might not be "designed" to carry out the stable RNA synthesis that occurs in the elongation phase right from the start. The initiation of RNA synthesis at a particular site that is required for specific gene expression and regulation as well as the need for de novo, unprimed synthesis necessitates binding of the polymerase at a specific DNA location, the promoter. Furthermore, the binding of T7 RNAP to both the promoter and the downstream DNA appears to be essential for opening the bubble. Because short transcripts (2 to 4 nt) cannot form stable heteroduplexes, polymerase leaving the promoter prematurely would presumably lead to bubble closure and transcript displacement by the nontemplate strand. An enzyme locked in the elongation mode conformation seems unlikely to be capable of specific initiation and bubble opening. 

The authors also found that point mutations in certain spots either broke the machine or made it translate much less efficiently.  Eukaryotes have additional protein parts in their translation machinery that do not require the contortions done by RNA Polymerase in these ultra-miniature life-forms.

This is all so mind-boggling.  It's like these little robots can reorganize themselves, like something in an animated sci-fi movie (or a kid with an advanced Lego set).  These incredibly tiny machines have moving parts that twist and turn and form tunnels and zippers and clamps and presses right on cue, and they are programmed with the know-how to handle every contingency.  How could this evolve by chance? When you see such a marvelous coordination of highly-specific parts, how can you conclude anything less than that a skillful Artist and Engineer designed it?  The rules have changed.  Biochemists have opened the black box, and shown us what really goes on deep inside the fundamental units of life.  It gets more amazing as the focus sharpens.  There is essentially no mention of evolution in this paper. As we show so often, evolutionary storytelling is inversely proportional to the amount of detail available for study.  (For contrast, see next headline.)

Link

[PatrickHenry]

How could this evolve by chance? When you see such a marvelous coordination of highly-specific parts, how can you conclude anything less than that a skillful Artist and Engineer designed it?

Classic example of creation science: "Golly, this is really neat! Therefore [initiate brain shutdown] it must be a miracle!"

[Markofhumanfeet]

Well then, why don't you explain it to us

[bondserv]

Where's the Evidence for Selection?  We're Still Looking   11/16/2002
Steve Olson, writing a perspective piece on population genetics in Science November 15, is "Seeking the Signs of Selection."  He's pretty sure they will be found, now that we have the complete human genome, and faster ways to sequence genes.  But it's a daunting task (emphasis added):

Scientists have long sought the genetic imprint of natural selection to understand the forces that have shaped human traits. But it's been a bit like trying to solve a crossword puzzle in which the clues have been scrambled. Other demographic events such as migrations, population contractions and expansions, and mating traditions have also left their mark on our genomes, making the effects of selection and history hard to untangle. ...

The effort to understand human traits and diseases in terms of natural selection began with Darwin, who sought in his last book, The Descent of Man, "to see how far the general conclusions arrived at in my former works were applicable to man."  But as the quest moved to the genetic level in the 20th century, the task proved more difficult than expected. To detect selection, researchers first must determine how a genetic sequence would change under neutral conditions in which selection was not a factor. That's easy to do for an infinitely large, randomly mating population—but human populations have never met those conditions.

About 150 anthropologists, geneticists, and pharmaceutical experts have been meeting at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratories to find the missing signs of selection in human genes that have evolved to fight diseases, a "new field, evolutionary medicine."  Olson claims there have been some prospects, like lactose tolerance and resistance to malaria conferred by the sickle-cell gene, "But beyond these well-known examples, the pickings have been slim."  He lists five samples in a table, but three are controversial or questionable, and the other two are ambiguous; is it really an improvement to have one disease like sickle-cell anemia balance another disease like malaria, so called "balancing selection"?  And is the one example of "directional selection" (the classic Darwinian mechanism), i.e. lactose tolerance among pastoralists, really conclusive?  Don't adults with lactose intolerance still have babies?
      The search for remnants of natural selection in the genes is also rendered difficult by the fact that "demographic processes and random chance can mimic selection."  For example, a population might lack a gene because it migrated as a small group. Worse still, there is no one-to-one correspondence between a gene and a human trait.  Jody Hey of Rutgers explains, "No one has found a variant that explains more than a couple of percent of any common disease, and all of these diseases are going to be highly multigenic" (i.e., influenced by multiple genes).  The search is further clouded by the recognition that social and psychological dimensions of human behavior, such as traditions about alcohol consumption, can affect the distribution of genes.  Nevertheless, Olson is optimistic: "But after years of frustration, researchers are welcoming the new data and methods that might finally yield progress."

This entry and the one prior to it illustrate a common theme in these pages, that while evolutionists engage in guesswork and wishful thinking, the real hard evidence points to design.  Here we are in 2002, with 1.4 centuries of Darwinism directing biological thought, but where is the evidence for natural selection in the genes, where it should be most obvious?  We have the entire human genome sequenced, but nobody can find it.  The examples he cites in his table are almost ludicrous.  Surely they are nothing to crow about as evidence to support a belief in macroevolution, the origin of some new and complex function.  If anything, they are relics of conservative responses by the genome to maintain the complexity it already had.  "Balancing selection" (getting your enemies to fight each other) is not making you stronger.  Anybody want to inherit the gene for sickle-cell anemia?  That's devolution, not evolution.  It's like getting a lucky break because a gunman missed you, and by mistake shot the carjacker who was holding you up.
     One gets the impression these brilliant men have been snookered into a snipe hunt.  Darwin sent them into the woods with their bags and told them there were snipe all over the place.  Some of them are beating the bushes, and others are holding the bags to the ground, while they encourage one another that things are looking up, now that they have been given bigger bags and more helpers to beat the bushes.  Meanwhile, Phillip Johnson and Jonathan Wells are back in the lodge by the fire, chuckling over a hot cup of coffee.

Link

[bondserv]

We are discovering the level of engineering involved to sustain life. When you consider the sophistication it requires to engineer reproducing, self-healing, error detection and correction, multi-system intergration, purposeful limits...

It is not looking very good for our random chance friends at this point. The focus is only going to continue to increase!

[PatrickHenry]

It is not looking very good for our random chance friends at this point. The focus is only going to continue to increase!

There are probably a few thousand molecular biologists currently studying such matters. And no creation "scientists" (unless carping from the sidelines and putting up creationist websites is considered "research" in the creationist community). So we shall see what develops.

[bondserv]

So we shall see what develops.

Good enough.

[_Jim]

Then again you could be wrong!

The key word here is 'could'.

I think the number of times I've been wrong in the last six or so years numbers in the low single digits - and that was on very minor items ...

[Oztrich Boy]

My question is this: "Just WHEN did the monkeys, apes and lemurs get their opposable thumbs on their FEET?"
It seems to ME that this would give THEM a FOURfold advantage....

It all depends on
1. How efficient the specifi opposable thumb is. None of the other primates have fully-opposable thumbs, even on their forelimbs

2. The adaptibilty to the environment. Having four gripping limbs is an advatage in an arboreal environment. Bu that very environment is not conductuve to a tool-using lifestyle.
On the other hand, on the ground, specialized sets of manipulating and moving limbs are better for combining tool-using with efficient long distance mobility than double sets of generalized limbs.

(The man-monkey advantage is as much about the arched sole as it is the opposable thumb)

[_Jim]

A Complex Engineering Puzzle

At some point here, you are going to cross a bridge and arriving on the other side make a few realizations; one of which is going to be the 'folly' of thinking that 'man' is composed of matter so radically different than that of animals and the other is that man was at some point bestowed with a spirit and a free will that sets him apart from other life on earth and in rendered him created in the image and likeness of the Almighty God...

Until then, we can expect to see more defense of that which defies logic and opposes *real* science; to those ends you will eventually be forced, just as those who thought the earth to be the center of the universe with the sun revolving around it, to 'invent' ever more bizarre beliefs, theories et al that aren't borne out in reality nor can stand the ultimate of all tests in this area: the continued unraveling and discoveries in and about the genetic code which is nature's "build print" or blue print if you will.

[ventana]

blue print

Funny stuff :-)

[Virginia-American]

Thanks for the link to foresight.org. Very interesting stuff!