God and the New Evolutionary Biology

by Sy Garte

Beavers: Hypothesized to be the most cute of all known niche constructors

The paradigm of the neo-Darwinian modern synthesis (NDMS) assumes that all variation in living forms arises from random mutations, and that evolution results from a slow, steady process of accumulation of minute genetic and phenotypic changes.
 
Recent scientific findings are challenging those views (1,2). Ecological and physiological interactions with an active genome are being proposed as important drivers of evolution (3,4). Gene duplication (which can extend to the whole genome) allows for evolutionary novelty, since the additional, duplicated gene is no longer under selection pressure and can mutate without causing harm (5-7). Many new genes have resulted from highly mutated gene duplicates. Mobile genetic elements, or “jumping genes” called transposons, often mediate gene duplication and other genomic changes (8,9). Retrotransposition probably played a major role in primate evolution (10). Horizontal gene transfer occurs when genetic material is exchanged between organisms. While this mostly happens among bacteria, DNA can also be transferred to eukaryotes such as some parasites, sponges, and tardigrades (microscopic aquatic animals) (11-13).
 
Epigenetic changes in gene expression appear to be major evolutionary drivers (14,15). Recent data from several lines of enquiry indicate that some critical genes whose alteration can lead to major evolutionary changes are likely involved in the control of the expression of other genes. Many such genes play important roles in development (16,17). The gene regulatory networks that operate at a high level of complex interactions are themselves controlled by a combination of environmental, epigenetic, and gene-based signals (18-21).
 
It turns out that in certain circumstances bacteria can produce beneficial mutations that are not random but directed to alleviate starvation or other stressors (22-24). The mechanisms by which such events can occur have been elucidated. Large-scale re-engineering of the genome in response to environmental stimuli, or Natural Genetic Engineering, includes many of the mechanisms listed above and leads to rapid and dramatic evolutionary change (25). For example, modern mitochondria were originally prokaryotic cells that were engulfed by eukaryotes.  
 
Niche construction is the general term given to the idea that many animals have as great an influence on their environments (thereby affecting other organisms) as the environment has on them. Beaver dams, coral reefs, and the impact of invertebrates on soil quality are some examples. This phenomenon results in a co-evolution of many different kinds of species that are associated with each other in environmental niches (26-28).
 
All of these mechanisms for producing phenotypic variation and affecting natural selection are joining the standard model in the expansive and liberating postmodern synthesis called the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) (29-32). The NDMS limits biology to a form of reductionist and materialistic genetic determinism. The new EES paradigm of evolutionary biology (still in the process of development) could lead to new perspectives on the questions of direction and teleology in evolution.
 
While evolutionary biologists such as Gould argued that evolution is devoid of purpose and direction, there is no evidence that teleology is ruled out or impossible. More recent studies on convergence by Simon Conway Morris and others suggest that we need to rethink the idea that there is no direction in evolution (33-37). These new perspectives can potentially change the way in which Darwinian evolution is viewed by Christians, and remove many of the barriers for acceptance of evolution as God’s process for biological creation.
 
The theological implications of any form of the EES are complex and broad. There is plenty of evidence that natural selection (including all the newer mechanisms of variation listed above) can lead to the diversity of life we see, without divine intervention. It is worth noting that the principle scientific pioneers and architects of the EES are not theists, and in fact actively deny any application of their views to what they call “creationism”. This is not at all surprising – scientific enterprises with a theological focus are quite rare.
 
But it isn’t the private philosophical views of biologists that matter so much as the import of the data and theories that they are bringing to light. If there are pointers to God’s role in determining evolutionary destiny, the EES could allow for exploration of these pointers in ways that were not possible using the NDMS model.

The emphasis on the role of environmental conditions in shaping genetic and epigenetic variation in the EES (in addition to the acknowledged role of the environment in selection) provides some ground for theological speculation. It is not much of a stretch for theists to think of environmental conditions as the province of God. From what we know about the complexity of weather, climate, tectonic plate movements, volcanism, asteroid impacts, and atmospheric chemistry, it is reasonable to take the view that what we call “Acts of God” are just that.

However, while it is tempting to rush into the possible theological implications of the EES, these speculations on how God might have directed the evolutionary process are not terribly convincing. There have been other equally plausible and equally unapproachable hypotheses put forward for mechanisms of divine intervention in evolution. The stochastic nature of quantum events at the level of the electrons of atoms involved in nucleotide base pairing has been suggested to provide a target for divine action, as have the effects of highly focused cosmic radiation on mutational events. However, the chances of finding good scientific arguments for any kind of direct divine intervention in biology seem to be slim. It could very well be futile to pursue such mechanistic explanations for God’s putative guidance of the process of life’s evolution.

We already know that God must play an active role in biology as well as in the rest of creation, by faith and Scripture (38-39). Scientific confirmation is not necessary, although it would be valuable in our continuing efforts to find harmony between the two books of God’s revelation to humanity. We should follow the new world of the EES into a much deeper and broader understanding of the mysteries of biological function.

My own current work is on unraveling and understanding the complexity of the gene regulatory networks that control the expression of genes in development and in adult animals. I am finding confirmation of the enormous beauty and intricacy of the living world reflected in this small part of the new theories of biological evolution. It is possible that such approaches, besides being scientifically defensible, may also lead  (as has almost every line of research into biology so far) to surprising, and even spiritually informative conclusions about how the Creator works, and why.

---

REFERENCES
 
1. Laland KN, Odling-Smee J, Feldman MW, Kendal J. Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology. Found Sci. 14: 195–216. 2009
 
2. Koonin EV. Towards a postmodern synthesis of evolutionary biology. Cell Cycle. 8:799-800. 2009
 
3. Laland KN,  Odling-Smee J, Hoppitt W, Uller T. More on how and why: cause and effect in biology revisited. Biol. Philos. 28:719–745. 2013
 
4. Noble D. Neo-Darwinism, the Modern Synthesis and selfish genes: are they of use in physiology? The Journal of Physiology. 589:1007–1015. 2011
 
5. Zhang G, Cohn MJ. Genome duplication and the origin of the vertebrate skeleton. Curr Opin Genet Dev. 18:387-93. 2008
 
6. Dehal P, Boore JL. Two rounds of whole genome duplication in the ancestral vertebrate. PLoS Biol. 3:E314. 2005
 
7. Coate JE, Doyle JJ. Divergent evolutionary fates of major photosynthetic gene networks following gene and whole genome duplications. Plant Signal Behav. 6:594-597. 2011
 
8. Zhang Z, Saier MH Jr. Transposon-mediated adaptive and directed mutations and their potential evolutionary benefits. J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 21:59-70. 2011
 
9. Cordaux R, Batzer MA. The impact of retrotransposons on human genome evolution. Nat Rev Genet. 10:691-703. 2009
 
10. Xing J, Wang H, Belancio VP, Cordaux R, Deininger PL, Batzer MA. Emergence of primate genes by retrotransposon-mediated sequence transduction. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 103:17608-13. 2006
 
11. Alsmark UC, Sicheritz-Ponten T, Foster PG, Hirt RP, Embley TM. Horizontal gene transfer in eukaryotic parasites: a case study of Entamoeba histolytica and Trichomonas vaginalis. Methods Mol Biol. 532:489-500. 2009
 
12. Jackson DJ, Macis L, Reitner J, Wörheide G. A horizontal gene transfer supported the evolution of an early metazoan biomineralization strategy. BMC Evol Biol. 11:238-244. 2011
 
13. Boto L. Horizontal gene transfer in evolution: facts and challenges. Proceedings of the Royal Society B. 277:819-827. 2010
 
14. Jablonka E, Raz G. Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: prevalence, mechanisms, and implications for the study of heredity and evolution. Q. Rev. Biol. 84:131–176. 2009
 
15. Skinner MK. Environmental Epigenetics and a Unified Theory of the Molecular Aspects of Evolution: A Neo-Lamarckian Concept that Facilitates Neo-Darwinian Evolution. Genome Biol Evol.       7:1296-302. 2015
 
16. Carroll S. Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom. W. W. Norton & Company, New York. 2005
 
17. Müller GB. Evo–devo: extending the evolutionary synthesis. Nature Reviews Genetics. 8, 943-949. 2007
 
18. Wagner A. Arrival of the Fittest. Penguin, Random House, 2014, New York.
 
19. Gerstein MB et al. Architecture of the human regulatory network derived from ENCODE data. Nature. 489:91–100. 2012
 
20. Hinman VF, Cheatle Jarvela AM. Developmental gene regulatory network evolution: insights from comparative studies in echinoderms. Genesis. 52:193-207. 2014
21. Streit A, Tambalo M, Chen J, Grocott T, Anwar M, Sosinsky A, Stern CD. Experimental approaches for gene regulatory network construction: the chick as a model system. Genesis. 51:296-310. 2013
 
22. Rosenberg SM. Evolving Responsively: Adaptive Mutation. Nature Reviews Genetics. 2: 504-515. 2001
 
23. Wright BE. Stress-directed adaptive mutations and evolution. Mol Microbiol. 52:643-50. 2004
 
24. Saier MH Jr. Did adaptive and directed mutation evolve to accelerate stress-induced evolutionary change? J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 21:5-7. 2011

25. Shapiro JA. A 21st Century View of Evolution: Genome system architecture, repetitive DNA, and natural genetic engineering. Gene. 345:91-100. 2005.

26. Odling-Smee FJ, Laland KN, Feldman MW. Niche construction: the neglected process in evolution. Princeton Univ. Press, Princeton, NJ. 2003
 
27. Croll DA,  Maron JL,  Estes JA, Danner EM, Byrd GV. Introduced predators transform subarctic islands from grassland to tundra. Science 307:1959–1961. 2005
 
28. Aoki K.  A stochastic model of gene-culture coevolution suggested by the “culture historical hypothesis” for the evolution of adult lactose absorption in humans. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 83(9):2929-33. 1986
 
29. Garte S. New Ideas in Evolutionary Biology: From NDMS to EES. Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. 68:3-11, March 2016
 
30. Noble D. Central tenets of neo-Darwinism broken. Response to 'Neo-Darwinism is just fine'. J Exp Biol. 218:2659. 2015
 
31. Pigliucci M. Do We Need an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis? Evolution. 61:2743–2749. 2007
32. Laland K, Uller T, Feldman M,  Sterelny K, Müller GB, Moczek A, Jablonka E,  Odling-Smee J, Wray GA,  Hoekstra HE, Futuyma DJ, Lenski RE, Mackay TFC, Schluter D, Joan E. Strassmann JE. Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental. Nature. 514:161–164. 2014
 
33. Frankel N, Wang S, Stern DL. Conserved regulatory architecture underlies parallel genetic changes and convergent phenotypic evolution. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 109:20975-20979. 2012
 
34. Gallant JR, Traeger LL, Volkening JD, Moffett H, Chen PH, Novina CD, Phillips GN Jr, Anand R, Wells GB, Pinch M, Güth R, Unguez GA, Albert JS, Zakon HH, Samanta MP, Sussman MR. Genomic basis for the convergent evolution of electric organs. Science. 344:1522-1525. 2014
 
35. Bradic M, Teotónio H, Borowsky RL. The population genomics of repeated evolution in the blind cavefish Astyanax mexicanus. Mol Biol Evol. 30:2383-400. 2013
 
36. Conway Morris S. Life's Solution: Inevitable Humans in a Lonely Universe. Cambridge University Press, New York. 2008
 
37. Ayala FJ. Teleological Explanations in Evolutionary Biology. Philosophy of Science. 37:1-15. 1970
 
38. McGrath AE.  Darwinism and the Divine. Wiley Blackwell, Oxford, UK. 2011
 
39. Miller KB (editor). Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. William B. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids, MI. 2003

Sy Garte earned his Ph.D. in biochemistry and BS in Chemistry from the City University of New York. He has been a Professor of Public Health and Environmental Health Sciences at New York University, Rutgers University, and the University of Pittsburgh.

In addition to over 200 scientific publications in genetics, molecular epidemiology, cancer research and other areas, Sy is the author of four books, and of articles in Perspectives in Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) and The BioLogos Forum.

Sy recently retired from a senior administrative position at the NIH, and is now President of the Natural Philosophy Institute, where he is working on a John Templeton Foundation grant to study the theory of gene regulatory networks. Dr. Garte is Vice President of the Washington DC Chapter of the ASA, and a member of the John Templeton Foundation Board of Advisors. His blog is www.thebookofworks.com.