New Evolution Nightmare for Craig Venter

New Evolution Nightmare for Craig Venter

J. Craig Venter, best known for being the first to sequence the human genome in 2000, is recognized as one of the leading scientists of the 21st century. Ten years after his important accomplishment, Venter was credited for successfully recreating “the first synthetic species” in 2010 – named Mycoplasma laboratorium.

In his relentless pursuit to “understand the molecular and biological function of every gene in a cell,” Venter released the latest findings discovered in his genetics research laboratory in Southern California. The paper, entitled “Design and Synthesis of a Minimal Bacterial Genome,” was published on March 25, 2016 in the journal Science. The findings have emerged as a new genomic evolution nightmare for Craig Venter.

Major Mystery

Emily Singer, science writer for Quanta Magazine, covered Venter’s newest publication in the article entitled “In Newly Created Life-Form, a Major Mystery” – code for a new evolution nightmare.

Venter’s research team attempted whittling down the genome of a simple bacterium, Mycoplasma mycoides, for the purpose of revealing the bare-bones set of genetic instructions capable of reproducing life.


The final laboratory product is now known to have the world’s most bare-bone genome. Named syn3.0 (pictured above) , the organism contains just 473 genes. By comparison, the gram-negative bacteria Escherichia coli contains between 4,000 to 5,500 genes, while humans have roughly 20,000 and the fruit fly has roughly 26,000 genes. Biological complexity is unrelated to the number of genes.

“To me, the most interesting thing is what it tells us about what we don’t know,” said Jack Szostak, a biochemist at Harvard University who was not involved in the study in an interview with Singer. “So many genes of unknown function seem to be essential.”

While Venter’s research team originally had expected to end-up with a small fraction of genes with yet an unknown identifiable function, “we were totally surprised and shocked,” said Venter Venter, Craig(pictured right) in an interview with Singer. “This is truly a stunning number,” he said.

Of the 473 genes studied, the function of 149, (31% of the 473) could not be determined. Venter concludes –

“The minimal cell concept appears simple at first glance but becomes more complex upon close inspection… Unexpectedly, it also contains 149 genes with unknown biological functions, suggesting the presence of undiscovered functions that are essential for life.”

Biological Principles

When Singer asked whether modern science has sufficient knowledge of basic biological principles, Venter replied –

“The answer is a resounding no.”

Raising the question “What’s left after trimming the genetic fat,” Singer notes, “It is unclear what the remaining 149 genes do.”

Scientists can broadly classify 70 of them based on the genes’ structure, but the researchers have little idea of what precise role the genes play in the cell. The functions of the other 79 genes are a complete mystery.

“We don’t know what they provide or why they are essential for life — maybe they are doing something more subtle, something obviously not appreciated yet in biology,” Venter said. “It’s a very humbling set of experiments.”

As Singer explains, “When scientists first began searching for such a thing 20 years ago, they hoped that simply comparing the genome sequences from a bunch of different species would reveal an essential core shared by all species. But as the number of genome sequences blossomed, that essential core disappeared.”

Evolution Nightmare

To re-trace the molecular stepping stones of biological evolution is at the core of Venter’s interest. “We could reduce billions of years of evolution to maybe years or months or weeks,” he speculated.

“In theory, Venter added, “we should be able to add genes back to [syn3.0] to recapitulate key parts of evolution.”

Beadle_TatumVenter’s syn3.0 discovery, however, underscores why the once widely popular “one gene, one enzyme” hypothesis proposed by Nobel Prize winners George Beadle and Edward Tatum, (pictured left) )in the early Darwinism era of the twentieth century, ended as a colossal bust.

“In fact,” Singer notes, “there’s no single set of genes that all living things need in order to exist.” The shock waves of the genomic revolution that started in the late twentieth century has essentially crushed the fundamentals of Darwinism and the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis theory.

In 2010, David Ussery, a biologist at Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee, and his collaborators, compared 1,000 genomes. They found that not a single gene is shared across all of life. “There are different ways to have a core set of instructions,” Szostak suggested.

Earliest life forms, however, could not have even started with the complexity of 400 genes. “We didn’t go from nothing to a cell with 400 genes,” affirmed Szostak.

Some evolutionists contend that this type of bottom-up approach is necessary in order to truly understand life’s essence. “If we are ever to understand even the simplest living organism, we have to be able to design and synthesize one from scratch,” said Anthony Forster, a biologist at Uppsala University in Sweden. “We are still far from this goal.”

Syn3.0 is a new evolution nightmare for Craig Venter. The possibility of discovering evidence for a genetic mechanism of evolution is now even more improbable.


“The more I study science,” Albert Einstein found, “the more I believe God.” In a letter to a little girl named Phyllis, Einstein wrote –

“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that some spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man.”

The Genesis record continues to be compatible with science evidence discovered in nature – “kind after kind.”

Evolution, once a theory in crisis, is now in crisis without even a cohesive unifying theory. Biological evolution exists only as a philosophy–not as a scientific fact.


5 Responses to “New Evolution Nightmare for Craig Venter”

  • Philip Fennell:

    The more that genuine science uncovers, the more embarrassed I am for those who dogmatically insist on defending a fading theory on purely ideological grounds.

  • Edward Tigchelaar:

    Philip Fennell is correct in his observation. Evolutionists are following an ideology, not science. But no one can tell them that. It is like those who want to believe in Global Warming aka Climate Change. The valid scientific data confirms we are in a cooling period and have been for some time. NASA photo’s show that Antarctica has gained approx 30% more ice in recent years. Alarmists talk about the polar bears suffering heat stroke in the Arctic. Meanwhile the polar bear population has never been higher or healthier. It takes time, but the truth makes it to the surface after awhile. Evolutionists fell in love with Darwins theories. 160+ years later it turns out the single cell amoeba (the one that supposedly crawled out of the primordial soup) is far far more complex than anyone heretofore ever imagined! Imagine that!! I wonder what our Creator thinks of all this?

  • Jeff Hyson:

    That’s very interesting, however, the writers conclusion is somewhat abrupt. It’s quite a leap to go from “we haven’t quite figured it out” to “darwinism is dead”. I appreciate a little mystery, as that’s what keeps science fun, but as a theistic evolutionist, I believe that the natural mechanisms God uses for the evolution of life are ultimately discoverable, and continue to reveal Gods glory.

  • Interesting. Absolutely certain, though, that the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob is in the business of truth and love, not in any mystery leading to some random survival of the fittest story of misery.

  • Frank Morris:

    Jeff, realistically Darwinism was dead long before this discovery, so there is nothing “abrupt” about pounding another nail in the coffin.

    What Venter learned is actually probably even more damaging to abiogenesis ideas than to whatever is left of Neo-Darwinism anyway. The very smallest genome that he has been able to make sustain life is 473 genes. That’s genes, not base pairs. Each gene could have anywhere from dozens to thousands of bits of data. Early abiogenesis calculations set the estimated minimum base pairs needed to begin life at 115 base pairs.

    If 115 base pairs by chance is untenable mathematically, how much worse would 473 genes be to form by luck?

Leave a Reply

Book Description

Buy Now

Kindle Edition Available

Darwin, Then and Now is a journey through the most amazing story in the history of science - the history of evolution. The book encapsulates who Darwin was, what he said, and what scientists have discovered since the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859.

With over 1,000 references, Darwin Then and Now is a historical chronicle of the rise and fall of the once popular theory of biological evolution.