Tuesday, July 16, 2013

on evolution

ANSWERS TO THE “EVOLUTIONIST CHALLENGE”

Creation.com challenges evolution by asking 15 questions. These questions are supposed to be impossible for evolution theory to answer, and are therefore posited as “gotcha” rhetoric. However, most of them are easily answerable with a basic understanding of evolution, or are unanswerable because the begin with false assumptions and therefore hold no inherently valid question. The questions are listed below, followed by answers.

1.HOW DID LIFE ORIGINATE?

Evolutionist Professor Paul Davies admitted, “Nobody  knows how a mixture of lifeless chemicals spontaneously organized themselves into the first living cell.” Andrew Knoll, professor of biology, Harvard, said, “we don’t really know how life originated on this planet”. A minimal cell
needs several hundred proteins. Even if every atom in the universe were an experiment with all the correct amino acids present for every possible molecular vibration in the supposed evolutionary age of the universe, not even one average-sized functional protein would form. So  how did life with hundreds of proteins originate just by chemistry without intelligent design?

1A. This is called abiogenesis. It’s actually different than evolution, as evolution theorizes on how organisms evolve over time--not how life was created in the first place. It does not bode well for your argument against evolution when you begin with questions that don’t involve evolution.

While it is unlikely we will ever know the exact circumstances under which Earth’s abiogenesis was created, we can theorize some very plausible conditions that have been proven to create the building blocks of life.

Perhaps the most famous experiment in this field was the Miller-Urey experiment, in which inorganic compounds (water, methane, amonia, and hydrogen) were allowed to mix with each other and an some electrical conductivity. Given primordial Earth’s composition and atmosphere, these conditions would have been present. The result was as they hoped: a significant number of amino acids--the very sort responsible for building proteins--were formed... enough to prove that Earth’s primordial “soup” easily contained the right conditions to create enough proteins for single- and later multi-cellular organisms.

For additional research that proves the possibility of abiogenesis, please see:
“Synthesis of activated pyrimidine ribonucleotides in prebiotically plausible conditions.” By  Matthew W. Powner, Beatrice Gerland & John D. Sutherland. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009.
“Systems chemistry on early Earth.” By Jack W. Szostak. Nature, Vol. 460, May 13, 2009

2. HOW DID THE DNA CODE ORIGINATE?
The code is a sophisticated language system with letters and words where the meaning of the words is unrelated to the chemical properties of the letters—just as the information on this page is not a product of the chemical properties of the ink (or pixels on a screen). What other coding system has existed without intelligent design? How did the DNA coding system arise without it being created?
2A. This is classic logical fallacy. In fact, it’s one of the most famous creationist fallacies, slight repackaged. This is called the “Watchmaker” argument, and it attempts to argue that complex things (or what we subjectively refer to as complex) could not have formed on their own. The reason this is fallacious is because it presents no true argument, using one’s ignorance as a basis for assuming there must be magic at work.
It also uses a backwards analogy: in this case, you are relating DNA to a coding structure, saying that since our computer codes are artificially created, DNA codes must also be. This is equally fallacious, as you are creating an abstract connection between these things that carries no inherent weight. By this reasoning, I could make the following argument: DNA is a type of blueprint, and since our blueprints are on paper, DNA must contain paper. Obviously, this is a false statement, as we know what compounds DNA comprises. However, as scientific research continues, we will gradually come to understand the other ways in which DNA is/was formed.  

3. HOW COULD MUTATIONS—ACCIDENTAL COPYING MISTAKES (DNA ‘LETTERS’ EXCHANGED, DELETED OR ADDED, GENES DUPLICATED, CHROMOSOME INVERSIONS, ETC.)—CREATE THE HUGE VOLUMES OF INFORMATION IN THE DNA OF LIVING THINGS?
How could such errors create 3 billion letters of DNA information to change a microbe into a microbiologist? There is information for how to make proteins and also for controlling their use—much like a cookbook contains the ingredients as well as the instructions for how and when to use them. One without the other is useless. See creation.com/meta-information. Mutations are known for their destructive effects, including over 1,000 human diseases such as hemophilia. Rarely are they even helpful. But how can scrambling existing DNA information create a new biochemical pathway or nano-machines with many components, to make ‘goo-to-you’ evolution possible? E.g., How did a 32-component rotary motor like ATP synthase (which produces the energy currency, ATP, for all life), or robots like kinesin (a ‘postman’ delivering parcels inside cells) originate?
3A. First, let’s address a fundamental misconception in this question. Whether accidentally ignorant of how DNA works, or whether you are being purposely misleading, it’s necessary to clarify what “3 billion letters of DNA” means:
- There are 3 billion base-pair sequences in the human genome.
- These sequences, individually, are responsible for different traits. HOWEVER:
- They are called “pairs” and “sequences” because they are not all unique, individual letters.
- A base pair is a sequence of only 4 different nucleotides: A, T, C, G, in varying permutations.   
Thus, if you are attempting to present DNA as 3 billion different letters, all independently formed and extant, you are wrong. It is far more reasonable (and correct!) to view the human genome as a very long sequence of a few chemicals. Our complexity comes not from the quantity of our parts, but the quantity of ways in which they are arranged.

Now, moving past your initial error, the answer to how mutations result in organic variety is the most basic, fundamental fact of evolution. I won’t go into the entirety of Darwin’s work, but suffice to say “survival of the fittest” is a very fitting term.



4. WHY IS NATURAL SELECTION, A PRINCIPLE RECOGNIZED BY CREATIONISTS, TAUGHT AS ‘EVOLUTION’, AS IF IT EXPLAINS THE ORIGIN OF THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE?

By definition it is a selective process (selecting from already existing information), so is not a creative process. It might explain the survival of the fittest (why certain genes benefit creatures more in certain environments), but not the arrival of the fittest (where the genes and creatures came from in the first place). The death of individuals not adapted to an environment and the survival of those that are suited does not explain the origin of the traits that make an organism adapted to an environment. E.g., how do minor back-and-forth variations in finch beaks explain the origin of beaks or finches? How does natural selection explain goo-to-you evolution?

4A. Your question stems from a basic misunderstanding of what evolution is. This is explained in the first question, but I will repeat myself: Natural Selection is evolution. Abiogenesis is not evolution. Therevore, evolution is taught as evolution. Natural selection explains how animals adapt to their environments over time, thus “evolving.”

It is also worth noting that natural selection is not recognized by all creationists. Perhaps many creationists do recognize it, but do not discount what other creationists believe. They, at least, are fully committed to their lore.


5. HOW DID NEW BIOCHEMICAL PATHWAYS, WHICH INVOLVE MULTIPLE ENZYMES WORKING TOGETHER IN SEQUENCE, ORIGINATE?

Every pathway and nano-machine requires multiple protein/enzyme components to work. How did lucky accidents create even one of the components, let alone 10 or 20 or 30+ at the same time, often in a necessary programmed sequence? Evolutionary biochemist Franklin Harold wrote, “we must concede that there are presently no detailed Darwinian accounts of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular system, only a variety of wishful speculations.”

5A. It’s true that Charles Darwin did not have a full understanding of cellular microbiology. This is likely due to the time period in which he lived. However, if you are willing to accept scientific accounts after the 1800s, there is much proof of evolution on a microbiotic scale. The fact that humans evolve tolerances and immunities to drugs and diseases is the very essence of evolution; the fact that African Americans are more likely to have sickle cell anemia (as being predisposed to it once proved evolutionarily advantageous against the African spread of malaria) is a prime example of evolution from a microbiological perspective.

Of course, not every accident is “lucky.” In fact, most mutations are either harmful or negligible in the survival of a species. However, if something is harmful, that mutation will not live long to be passed on to another generation, while the beneficial ones will. Add 3.5 billion years, and you have a long time for beneficial traits to thrive and become common. Once again, this is a basic tenant of evolution that is either being overlooked or ignored.


6. LIVING THINGS LOOK LIKE THEY WERE DESIGNED, SO HOW DO EVOLUTIONISTS KNOW THAT THEY WERE NOT DESIGNED?

Richard Dawkins wrote, “biology is the study of complicated things that have the appearance of having been designed with a purpose.” Francis Crick, the codiscoverer of the double helixstructure of DNA, wrote, “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” The problem for evolutionists is that living things show too much design. Who objects when an archaeologist says that pottery points to human design? Yet if someone attributes the design in living things to a designer, that is not acceptable. Why should science be restricted to naturalistic causes rather than logical causes?

6A. This is, once again, the Watchmaker argument. It is, once again, fallacious. Complexity does not necessarily imply intelligent design, no matter how many complex man-made things you can name. If this logic is not apparent to you, here’s a good break-down of it, complete with comics:




7. HOW DID MULTI-CELLULAR LIFE ORIGINATE?

How did cells adapted to individual survival ‘learn’ to cooperate and specialize (including undergoing programmed cell death) to create complex plants and animals?

7A. Simply put, single-celled organisms that worked together had better survival rates. It was not a conscious decision on their part, obviously. Cells don’t “learn” the way we do; they just survive. And those whose habits (however random and incidental they may have been) increased their survival are the ones who thrives and thus continued to spawn. This is survival-of-the-fittest on a very basic, cellular level. If you’re actually interested in the science and proof behind it, do some research:

Velicer, G. J. and Y. N. Yu. 2003. "Evolution of novel cooperative swarming in the bacterium Myxococcus xanthus." Nature, 425, 75-78.
Rainey, Paul B. and Katrina Rainey. 2003. Evolution of cooperation and conflict in experimental bacterial populations. Nature 425: 72-74.
King, Nicole, Christopher T. Hittinger and Sean B. Carroll. 2003. Evolution of key cell signaling and adhesion protein families predates animal origins.Science 301: 361-363.

8. HOW DID SEX ORIGINATE?


8A. I’m not an expert on the origins of sex, so I’ll defer to someone who is. This is what good students, thinkers, and citizens do: when they don’t know something, they look it up. They shouldn’t use their ignorance as a claim that something is unanswerable.



Walt Brown, 1995, writes: “The variety of life cycles is very great. It is not simply a matter of being sexual or asexual. There are many intermediate stages. A gradual origin, with each step favored by natural selection, is possible (Kondrashov 1997). The earliest steps involve single-celled organisms exchanging genetic information; they need not be distinct sexes. Males and females most emphatically would not evolve independently. Sex, by definition, depends on both male and female acting together. As sex evolved, there would have been some incompatibilities causing sterility (just as there are today), but these would affect individuals, not whole populations, and the genes that cause such incompatibility would rapidly be selected against.

Many hypotheses have been proposed for the evolutionary advantage of sex (Barton and Charlesworth 1998). There is good experimental support for some of these, including resistance to deleterious mutation load (Davies et al. 1999; Paland and Lynch 2006) and more rapid adaptation in a rapidly changing environment, especially to acquire resistance to parasites (Sá Martins 2000).”

-- Brown, Walt, 1995. In the Beginning: Compelling evidence for creation and the Flood. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, pp. 14-15.


9. WHY ARE THE (EXPECTED) COUNTLESS MILLIONS OF TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS MISSING?

Darwin noted the problem and it still remains. The evolutionary family trees in textbooks are based on imagination, not fossil evidence. Famous Harvard paleontologist (and evolutionist), Stephen Jay Gould, wrote, “The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology”. Other evolutionist fossil experts also admit the problem.

9A. Every fossil is a transitional fossil. Every organism that has ever existed represents a distinct stage of that species’ (or genus’, or kingdom’s) evolution. We have found fossil of our not-so-distant ancestors, as well as species that were an off-shoot but closely branched to our own. Likewise, dinosaur fossils are the transition between reptiles are birds. It seems every time a new species is discovered, creationists want to see a new fossil linking it to another species. But what they fail to realize is that these fossils are, themselves, transitional. By definition, all organisms are always evolving--albeit gradually and, within our lifetimes, not very noticeably. Regardless, each new fossil shows the links between the characters of divergent species. To ignore the links between each species and those in between is to ignore reality.



10. HOW DO ‘LIVING FOSSILS’ REMAIN UNCHANGED OVER SUPPOSED HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF YEARS, IF EVOLUTION HAS CHANGED WORMS INTO HUMANS IN THE SAME TIME FRAME?

Professor Gould wrote, “the maintenance of stability within species must be considered as a major evolutionary problem.”

10A. Interesting that you should quote Gould, as he later developed a theory that addressed this. Ironically, the theory is not universally accepted in the scientific community, which leads one to wonder how strong a scientist Gould was in the first place.

Still, the answer is simple: Not all species will definitively evolve into new ones within a given period of time. Remember: evolution is a product of environment and survival. If a species is surviving well in its environment and thriving, mutations will not have as a dramatic impact on its survival rate. Humans, for example, have many methods in place to recover from negative mutations, and will not necessarily pass on more beneficial mutations as our survival rate overall is pretty great. Similarly, earthworms have found a very comfortable niche in their biosphere(s). Still, evolution is abound and ever-present. We, as a species, will certainly look different in a millennium from now, just as we’ve changed from humans a millennium ago. Maybe not greatly, but we’ve changed.



11. HOW DID BLIND CHEMISTRY CREATE MIND/ INTELLIGENCE, MEANING, ALTRUISM AND MORALITY?

If everything evolved, and we invented God, as per evolutionary teaching, what purpose or meaning is there to human life? Should students be learning nihilism (life is meaningless) in science classes?

11A. This presents no case for or against evolution, so I’m not sure why it’s included on this list. This seems more like a personal, existential dilemma. If the meaning in your life was solely and entirely derived by religion, then I can see why you’d be upset. I’m sorry for your imaginary loss.



12. WHY IS EVOLUTIONARY ‘JUST-SO’ STORYTELLING TOLERATED?

Evolutionists often use flexible story-telling to ‘explain’ observations contrary to evolutionary theory. NAS (USA) member Dr Philip Skell wrote, “Darwinian explanations for such things are often too supple: Natural selection makes humans self-centered and aggressive—except when it makes them altruistic and peaceable. Or natural selection produces virile men who eagerly spread their seed—except when it prefers men who are faithful protectors and providers. When an explanation is so supple that it can explain any behavior, it is difficult to test it experimentally, much less use it as a catalyst for scientific discovery.”

12A. The fact that evolution is complicated does not mean it is wrong or falsifiable. It doesn’t even make it “supple”; it just makes it complex. These are not exceptions to rules; these ARE the rules, with different applications and outcomes, depending on contextual factors. Aggression may be a beneficial trait in one species at one time in one geographic location, while being negative when any/all of those factors are differentiated.

If I described our planet as “a giant sphere of rock in space, orbiting a star,” you might agree that those distinctions are true. But upon learning that Jupiter is not made of rock, but of gas, would you then proclaim, “Aha! Jupiter’s a planet and it’s not made of rock! Planets don’t exist!”? Of course not. It’s simply a new factor and distinction to broaden our understanding of planets. Science is complicated. But that doesn’t mean we should throw our hands up in the air and pretend it must be wrong.

Besides, you should not bring up the notion of hypocritical, malleable, interpretable story-telling if you want to argue for creationism.



13. WHERE ARE THE SCIENTIFIC BREAKTHROUGHS DUE TO EVOLUTION?

Dr Marc Kirschner, chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?

13A. This is not a logical question. Evolution is a scientific theory, but not an entire field of science unto itself like biology is. Granted, you can look at biology, chemistry, and physiology from an evolutionary standpoint, and there are subsets of these sciences that pertain to evolution. However, one theory will not produce infinite breakthroughs, as it’s a breakthrough unto itself.

You are also creating a strawman argument by claiming evolution is not involved with scientific discoveries. It is. All the time. Would you like me to link to all of them, or can we just accept that this statement is a false assumption out of ignorance?



14. SCIENCE INVOLVES EXPERIMENTING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THINGS WORK; HOW THEY OPERATE. WHY IS EVOLUTION, A THEORY ABOUT HISTORY, TAUGHT AS IF IT IS THE SAME AS THIS OPERATIONAL SCIENCE?

You cannot do experiments, or even observe what happened, in the past. Asked if evolution has been observed, Richard Dawkins said, “Evolution has been observed. It’s just that it hasn’t been observed while it’s happening.”

14A. Evolution has happened, it is happening, and will continue to happen. We test it based on observing history and comparing it with what we know about the present. These are not arbitrary conjectures that are unscientific in nature; these are facts that are demonstrable. I’m sorry if your idea of science requires an immediately visible test tube reaction, but there are many forms of science and scientific theory. This is one of them.



15. WHY IS A FUNDAMENTALLY RELIGIOUS IDEA, A DOGMATIC BELIEF SYSTEM THAT FAILS TO EXPLAIN THE EVIDENCE, TAUGHT IN SCIENCE CLASSES?

15A. Just because you may not understand, have the patience for, or want to hear the evidence does not mean it is lacking. This question is absurdly fallacious, as it makes an outright false claim (that evolution lacks evidence and is religious), then questions why. This is called a straw man fallacy. In the spirit of mutual respect, I’ll retort with a similarly logical question:

Why is someone who did not even graduate high school spending his time writing questions about evolution?