Most people understand that our genes are stored in our DNA but what is less commonly understood is how the cell determines which genes to use at any one time. The DNA in our cells contain tens of thousands of protein-coding genes whose proteins serve a great variety of purposes. They serve as railroad tracks, precision tunnels, enzymes to speed up reactions and environmental sensors to name just a few. And some proteins go back to the DNA and bind to the double helix, as part of a complex regulatory network that determines which genes to use to make new proteins. In other words, the cell determines which genes, to use to make new proteins, by using existing proteins. But from where did those existing proteins come?
For evolutionists, the question of how DNA regulatory proteins arose is not simple for a number of reasons. One of them is that only a few DNA sequences successfully code for such a protein. Of course the protein structure must fit together with the DNA structure it regulates, and only a small fraction of the possible sequences provide such a structure.
But beyond this, new research is now showing that the protein’s amino acids that make contact with the DNA can be highly restricted. For one particular DNA regulatory protein, the research showed that for the roughly four amino acids that are important in binding with the DNA, only certain amino acids provide acceptable binding. Only about 1 in 50,000 random tries would work.
And that is only for those four amino acids, out of the hundreds comprising the protein. Given the additional structural constraints the odds are much worse. These results are consistent with experiments that show that a DNA binding protein is a 1 in a 1,000,000,000,000 (million million) shot.
And all this only buys a DNA regulatory protein. It is exceedingly unlikely that the protein would bind to the right places along the DNA double helix. It is also exceedingly unlikely that the protein would bind at the right time.
Evolutionists seek to explain the origin of such regulatory proteins, and the greater regulatory network, in terms of gradual pathways. But the above hurdles are not easily avoided and science does not reveal this to be a high probability event. Beyond speculation evolutionists have no explanation for why this is a likely event.
Of course the idea that regulatory proteins and networks evolved does not come from science, it comes from the belief that evolution is true. Strip that away and all that is left is story telling about unlikely events in the name of science. Religion drives science, and it matters.
