Is there any other holiday in the world that celebrates biophysically constrained cell type differentiation in all living genera?
The availability of amino acids and proteins in new genes is nutrient energy-dependent. The de novo creation of genes is biophysically constrained by the innate immune system and the physiology of reproduction. That fact was detailed for a general audience in Biblical Genesis.
Today, all of us can be thankful that the pseudoscientific nonsense of neo-Darwinian theory was replaced earlier in the month with experimental evidence of how new genes are created in the context of energy-dependent hydrogen-atom transfer in DNA base pairs in solution, single nucleotide polymorphisms, microRNA flanking sequences and RNA-mediated amino acid substitutions that stabilize the naturally fluorescent supercoiled DNA in all organized genomes.
We had this: “…insight coming from re-analyses of translated transcripts in yeast that suggested that de novo gene evolution could even be more prevalent than gene duplication-divergence processes 
The energy-dependent de novo creation of genes in the context of duplication and divergence was accurately portrayed like this: “…the exact network of interactions between the nuclear lamina and the genome depends on the protein components of the nuclear envelope, the epigenetic state of the genome, and the availability of specific proteins that interpret these epigenetic signals and mediate interactions with the nuclear lamina.“
Naturally occurring DNA fluorescence in bacteria and dinosaur osteocytes proves that the energy-dependent transfer of hydrogen atoms in DNA base pairs in solution is the basis for the creation of all biodiversity on Earth.
Simply put, God started with the creation of energy contained in hydrogen atoms as information, which is exactly what the Holy Bible says about His Word and the Light (the quantized anti-entropic virucidal energy of sunlight).Schrodinger (1944) linked it to the works that led to the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine (1933) awarded to Thomas Hunt Morgan for linking inheritance to chromosomal rearrangements. Schrodinger and Dirac shared the prize in Physics that year.
If you remember how your sheets smelled after they had been hung out to dry in the sun, you have already experienced an example of purifying selection for energy-dependent codon optimality, which can be placed into the context of the Nobel Prize-winning works from 1933, or not. You can tell atheists and agnostics about the energy-dependent purifying selection before asking them where they think the energy in a hydrogen atom came from, or not.
When a friend asked me about that, I was forced to learn more about subatomic particles, but what I learned does not matter as much now that the energy has been linked to the creation of new genes. The de novo creation of genes is referred to as the “holy grail” of biology.
However, the energy-dependent protection of the new genes from virus-driven energy theft is also important. If energy-dependent protein folding chemistry is not biophysically constrained and protected from energy theft, life on Earth could not exist.
Thank God, for the anti-entropic virucidal effects of ultraviolet (UV) light, which links femotosecond blasts of UV light to energy-dependent RNA-mediated DNA repair outside the context of claims about emergence and evolution. For comparison, see:
Conclusion (with my emphasis):
It has been suggested that the seemingly finite amount of stable protein folds observed across all domains of life is indicative of an early origin of all folds [16–18], possibly under different conditions and functions than the ones today . However, entirely new folds have been shown to arise de novo in viruses  and new domains are present in recently acquired regions of old genes, as well as in young genes . Until now, de novo evolved genes are largely underrepresented in structural analyses, and it seems that resolving their structure is a challenge that will provide us precious information about the origin of stable folds, molecular functions and the interaction between genome and environment.
Resolving the issues of virus-driven energy theft, which have been underrepresented in claims about the structure of functional DNA requires all serious scientists to include the role of virus-driven energy theft in the context of protein folding chemistry. There has never been a suggestion made by any serious scientist that the de novo creation of genes could occur outside the context of biophysically constrained protein folding chemistry. That’s why all serious scientists have linked energy-dependent changes from angstroms to ecosystems via the creation of genes and the virus-driven energy theft that links mutations to loss of function manifested in all pathology.
See also: Although sequence-specific association of co-regulated genomic loci is appealing, random interactions between loci with shared chromatin properties might be an equally effective way of modulating transcription levels.
Pseudoscientists who make claims like this have never supported them with experimental evidence of biologically-based cause and effect. Why would anyone include such a claim in the same article that proved the de novo creation of genes was energy-dependent and biophysically constrained via supercoiled DNA, which protects all organized genomes from virus-driven energy theft?