knotts@hplabsb.UUCP (Tom Knotts) (10/11/84)
There is an interesting article in the 1982 issue of Creation/
Evolution which is relevant to recent discussions of biochemical
comparisons between humans and other species. (Creation/Evolution favors evolution). The authors are Frank T. Awbrey and William M. Thwaites,
professors of biology at San Diego State University. They have debated
members of ICR on several occasions.
_A_Closer_Look_at_Some_Biochemical_Data_that_"Support"_Creation_
"Scientific" creationists insist that scientific data *demand* creation.
Yet very few creationist writings contain any data at all. Their "evidence"
usually consists of quoting questions raised by scientists (but not the
answers), redefining terms to suit their own purpose, misstating evolutionary
theory, and implying their own omniscience by saying that evolution is im-
possible because they cannot imagine how it could happen.
Sometimes, however, creationists interpret data published by scientists
without actually presenting the data for the reader to see. They apparently
have good reason for withholding this information. One good example relates
to the biochemical data that scientists claim agree with morphological,
developmental chromosomal, and genetic evidence showing that humans,
chimpanzees, and gorillas all share a recent common ancestor. Of course,
creationists disagree, and some almost infer that evolutionists are involved
in some sort of collusion. They say that evolutionists have to search for
the rare "right" molecules that seem to support their case, because most
biochemical data actually refute the theory of evolution (Gary Parker,
_Creation:_The_Facts_of_Life_, Creation-Life Publishers, 1980; _Homology,_
Embryology,_and_Vestigial_Organs:_Common_Ancestor_or_Common_Plan?_ Institute
for Creation Research).
In order to support this argument, ICR creationists list several molecules
which they say show that humans seem to be more closely related to quite
different organisms than the apes. Here are the relationships they claim:
Molecule Nearest Relative to Human
Fetal hemoglobin Horse
Tear enzymes Chicken
Albumin Bullfrog
Blood antigen A Butterbean
Cholesterol level Gartersnake
Milk chemistry Donkey
These data certainly would contradict the main prediction of evolution. How
did such an important conclusion slip past the authors of the papers
referenced in the creationist books on the subject? When we read those and
related papers, here is what we found.
FETAL HEMOGLOBIN. Hemoglobin has four globin molecules, each arranged
around a central iron atom and a porphyrin ring. Humans have several different
hemoglobins. Fetal hemoglobin has two alpha globins and two gamma globins,
each with 146 amino acids. Horses don't have gamma globins. Chimpanzees do,
and it is identical to that of humans (W. De Jong, *Biochemical et Biophysica
Acta, 251:217-226*). From these data, creationists conclude that a molecule
that doesn't exist is more similar to a human molecule that is an identical
chimpanzee molecule.
TEAR ENZYMES. The enzyme referred to here is lysozyme, which is found in
human milk, tears, leukocytes, and so forth. Variants exist in tissues of
other species, for example, in chicken egg whites. Prager and Wilson showed
that a chicken lysozyme differs from human lysozyme by fifty-one out of 130
amino acids (in E.F. Osserman, *Lysozyme*, Academic Press, 1974, pp. 127-141).
Chimpanzee lysozyme is identical to human lysozyme. It is apparent that the
creationists either had not bothered to look at this paper when they made
their claims or they believe that fifty-one is less than zero.
ALBUMIN. Human and chimpanzee albumins differ by six out of 580 amino acids.
Human and bullfrog albumins differ by so much that they don't even cross-react
in immunological tests. They are too different to allow this method to be
used for estimating the number of amino acid differences (Wallace and Wilson,
*Journal of Molecular Evolution 2, 1972*). The supposed evidence for creation
is contradicted again by reality.
BLOOD ANTIGEN A. This is one of the molecules that determine blood types.
They are called glycoproteins because they have sugars attached to a pro-
tein. Butterbeans contain a sugar configuration that is similar enough to the
glycoprotein sugar that it can react with antibodies directed against the
A blood type if the butterbean sugar is at a high concentration (Gottschalk,
*Glycoproteins, 1972*). Chimpanzees have blood antigens that are identical to
those of humans (J.Ruffie, "Immunologenetics of Primates" in *Perspectives
in Primate Biology* edited by A. B. Chigrelli, Plenum Press, 1972, p. 217).
Butterbeans, having no blood, obviously have no blood antigens.
CHOLESTEROL LEVEL. Cholesterol is a simple lipid (a wax) and its structure
doesn't vary among species. Furthermore, its concentration can vary several hundredfold in an individual human depending upon diet and genetic background.
Therefore, it is a useless molecule for determining genetic similarity. This
datum isn't just wrong, it's nonexistent.
MILK CHEMISTRY. We have not found a direct comparison of human and chimpan-
zee milk chemistry. R. E. Sloan, et al., showed that human milk proteins
(whey and casein) were much more like macaque milk than donkey milk (*com-
parative Biochemistry and Physiology, 1961, 4:47-62*).
Human and chimpanzee milk lysozymes are identical. Even this limited
comparison disproves the creationist claim that the donkey is our nearest
relative based on milk chemistry.
Not to be outdone, and perhaps even inspired by the foregoing ICR arguments,
the Laymen's Home Missionary Movement has published an anonymous tract called
*The Evolution Theory Examined*. On page fourteen, this missive has a section
called "Blood Tests No Proof of Evolution". It reads:
Blood tests are another argument that evolutionists allege for their
doctrine. They put the argument like this: Dog's blood injected into a
horse kills the horse; but, man's blood injected into an ape does it very
little harm. Hence, they reason, the dog and horse are not nearly related,
while man is nearly related to the ape. In reply, we say: Dog's blood is poisonous to most animals, while the blood and blood serum of the sheep,
goat, and horse are not poisonous to other animals and man. Hence serums
are usually made from these animals, especially from the horse. But no
serums for man have been made from apes, because they do not help man.
The facts would prove man to be more nearly related to the sheep, goat,
and horse than to the ape, if the argument under examination were true.
This bit of fantasy is so outlandish and so contrary to the facts that the
usual biologists' response to it is laughter, followed by consternation
or anger. First, the article confuses antibody-antigen reactions with poisons.
Nineteenth-century physicians experimenting with blood transfusion found
that they could give sheep blood to some people- once. A second transfusion
always killed the recipient, but it had nothing to do with poisons. Land-
steiner's work with blood groups is very well known. Whoever wrote this
article should have spent a few minutes reading about blood in any good
encyclopedia published since 1900. The foreign blood proteins cause anti-
bodies to build up. With a second transfusion, the antibodies react with the
blood cells causing them to clump together, fatally blocking circulation.
The same thing happens in transfusions between persons with incompatible
blood groups.
Next, statements in the article about serum are as misinformed as those about
transfusions. Serum is used to provide antibodies that protect the body by
reacting with a specific substance, such as botulus toxin or rattlesnake
venom. Apes are not used for serum production because they are too expensive
to maintain. Horses are relatively inexpensive and easier to acquire. One
horse produces a lot of serum, thus keeping costs down. All horse-derived
serums bear warnings indicating that severe allergic reactions may occur.
Many persons have died from such reactions. So much for "harmlessness."
The missive continues:
Again, the thyroid gland of the sheep serves man better when it
replaces his than that of ape, as operations have proved. This
also spoils the argument under review. Vaccine matter is taken
from cows rather than apes--another fact against the argument under
review. The Abrams Dynamizer, one of the most accurate of blood-
testing instruments, proves that the blood reactions of the sheep,
goat, and horse are nearer that of human blood than is that of apes.
This disproves the argument under examination. We conclude, therefore
that blood tests do not prove man's descent from apes.
This paragraph surpasses the first as an example of sublime ignorance. To
begin with, persons with defective thyroids, or whose thyroids have been
removed, do not receive thyroid gland transplants from sheep. The organs
would be rejected. Such persons receive the *thyroxin*. This thyroid hormone
is not a protein but an amino acid derivative, usually containing four iodine
atoms. Like cholesterol, this simple molecule does not vary among vertebrate
species. It is extracted from sheep, cattle, and pigs, rather than from some
other vertebrate, simply because slaughter houses have a cheap, plentiful
supply. Human or ape thyroxin would be no better and is not available in
quantity.
As for the Abrams Dynamizer "proof", the reader is referred to the preceding
discussion of blood protein structural data. Humans and chimpanzees have
*identical or nearly identical* hemoglobins, A, O, and Rh antigens, lysozymes,
albumins, and many other blood molecules. These same blood proteins are
very similar in cattle and sheep, but differ from human and chimpanzee pro-
teins by many amino acids. For example, Morris Goodman showed that human
and sheep alpha hemoglobin differ by twenty-three of 143 amino acids (In
G. Fasman, *Proteins*, Vol. 3 of *Handbook of Biochemistry and Molecular
Biology*, Third Edition, Chemical Rubber Company, 1976, pp. 441-447).
The entire *disproof* is nothing more than a baseless pseudoscientific
fantasy that preys upon the scientific credulity of its intended audience.
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662) summed up the ethics of the purveyors of this
nonsense when he wrote "Men never do evil so cheerfully and so completely
as when they do so from religious conviction."
We have just examined several typical examples of "scientific facts that fit
the creation model better than they fit the theory of evolution." If the
creationists had any real data that supported their claims, why would they
publish such patent nonsense?
---------
Creation/Evolution is an excellent, nonprofit publication which contains
articles like the one above which attack creationists' claims. Any-
one who is interested in subscribing can write to:
CREATION/EVOLUTION
P.O. Box 5
Amherst Branch
Buffalo, NY 14226
Tom Knotts